Running head: Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Dimensions of Intrapreneurs

MSc Industrial/Organisational and Business

Psychology
Essay Assessment Form
Candidate: LKQB1

Module: PSYCGB03
First Marker

Focus: to what extent does the essay

answer/address the question?
Clarity: is it clear and have complex ideas
been articulated effectively?
Structure: is the structure explicit and
easy to follow?
Use of evidence: is the extensive body of
relevant evidence effectively assimilated?
Wider reading: does it convincingly
integrate material beyond core assigned
reading?
Critical analysis and insight: is there
evidence of students own
insight/analysis?
Use of references: was there good use of
references and APA system?

Po
or
1

Goo
d
5

Additional comments:

Final Grade (agreed):

PSYCGB03

Candidate Code: LKQB1

INTRAPERSONAL AND INTERPERSONAL DIMENSIONS OF INTRAPRENEURS

(First Marker, leave grade overleaf)

First Marker
Name
Signature
Date
Grade

PSYCGB03

Candidate Code: LKQB1

INTRAPERSONAL AND INTERPERSONAL DIMENSIONS OF INTRAPRENEURS

Business Psychology Seminars

PSYCGB03

Candidate Code:
LKQB1

The Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Dimensions of Intrapreneurs:

Detecting and Fostering Collaborative, Innovative Minds within the Workplace
(A review of the literature cited within and surrounding Reece Akhtars lecture The Social Networks of
Intrapreneurs: The Role of Personality & Social Capital on Intrapreneurial Achievement).

Word Count:
2,988

PSYCGB03

Candidate Code: LKQB1

INTRAPERSONAL AND INTERPERSONAL DIMENSIONS OF INTRAPRENEURS

With the increasingly rapid onset of new technologies, the contemporary global marketplace is
one of constant flux. It has therefore never been more vital for organisations to successfully
identify and capitalise upon innovative talent both during their hiring processes and within their
pre-existing workforce. This growing demand for innovation has led to the emergence of the
concept of the intrapreneurial employee: individuals who hold the traits generally associated with
entrepreneurial vision and activity but, rather than founding their own organisations to actualise
it, will instead operate within the structures of an already-established company (Hoang & Yi,
2015; Lumpkin, 2014). However, while there is some debate surrounding possible differences
between entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs in regards their intrinsic motivations and perceptions of
risk (e.g. Martiarena, 2011), it must be a warning to businesses that many successful start-up
companies are founded by individuals who felt under-utilised or dissatisfied within their previous
place of work (Carrier, 1994). Indeed, the literature generally considers both intrapreneurs and
entrepreneurs to be largely behaviourally equivalent. Yet what are the particular characteristics
shared by these innovators? What methods should organisations utilise to best obtain and utilise
intrapreneurial talent? Contemporary research literature presents strong cases for two distinct
means of detection: assessing an individuals personality for the facets most commonly
associated with innovation (e.g. Leutner, Ahmetoglu, Akhtar & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2014;
Hisrich, Langan-Fox, & Grant, 2007) and assessing the level of social capital an individual has
accrued within an organisations informal interpersonal network (e.g. Perry-Smith & Mannucci,
2015; Hills, Lumpkin & Singh, 1997). We shall now evaluate the propositions of these two areas
of study, as well as research which considers interactions between the two domains (e.g. Fang et
al., 2016; De Carolis & Saparito, 2006). While doing so, we shall explore some of the most well-

PSYCGB03

Candidate Code: LKQB1

INTRAPERSONAL AND INTERPERSONAL DIMENSIONS OF INTRAPRENEURS

regarded services and promising new tools which are based upon this research and are available
to businesses.

The Personality Facets of Innovation: The Five Factor Model and Beyond
Personality research and the desire for business optimisation have a deeply entwined history
(Furnham, 2008). Indeed, numerous studies have indicated that personality accounts for
significant variance regarding behaviours and attitudes within the workplace (ChamorroPremuzic & Furnham, 2010). Although there have historically been many different assessment
tools used within academia and business, the most prominent model within contemporary
research is the Five Factor Model (FFM), often casually referred to as the Big Five (McCrae &
Costa, 1995; Costa & McCrae, 1992).

As the name suggestions, the FFM model consists of five core factors of personality:
Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Openness to Experience, and Emotional
Stability. For example, the facets of Openness are as follows: Imagination, Artistic Interests,
Emotionality, Adventurousness, Intellect and Liberalism (Johnson, 2014; McCrae & Costa,
1995). Assessing an individuals FFM personality profile is straightforward process: participants
are presented with a self-report questionnaire in which they respond to a number of propositions
regarding their personality (e.g. I prefer variety to routine.) via Likert scales valued between
Very accurate and Not at all accurate. There are a large number of scales based around the
FFM which are available for businesses to use and interpret for their purposes, each with a
varying number of items to which participants must respond. For example, Goldbergs Big-Five

PSYCGB03

Candidate Code: LKQB1

INTRAPERSONAL AND INTERPERSONAL DIMENSIONS OF INTRAPRENEURS

Factor Markers (1992) contains 100 items, while the NEO-PI-R Facets contains 243 items (Costa
& McCrae, 1992). Given their questionnaire format, personality assessments can be very easily
deployed by businesses as desired, either during their selection process or during periods of
workforce review (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2010). However, what particular profiles
should an organisation be seeking when attempting to detect intrapreneurial potential?

While meta-analyses have indicated that personality factors do have a significant influence over
instances of innovation (e.g. Brandsttter, 2011; Rauch & Frese, 2007), there has been some
difficulty across these reviews in demarcating attributives which are particular to both
entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs across various different industries (Leutner, Ahmetoglu, Akhtar
& Chamorro-Premuzic, 2014). For example, while the association between job performance and
Contentiousness is clear across a broad range of employment types (Ones, Dilchert,
Viswesvaran, & Judge, 2007), the other four factors can vary dramatically when assessing
success across different professions (Barrick, Mount & Judge., 2001). Indeed, while high levels
of performance must clearly be an element of successful innovation, the personality attribute
most commonly associated with innovation is creativity (Winslow and Solomon, 1993): an
attribute ostensibly encapsulated within Openness (Hughes, Furnham & Batey, 2013; Hoseinifar
et al., 2011), although research has suggested that creativity is in and of itself a multifactorial
concept which comes in various guises (e.g. Wolfradt and Pretz, 2001; James & Asmus, 2001),
each potentially with its own levels of variance across the FFM. Given the composite and
context-specific nature of creativity innovation, there has been much debate as to what exactly
constitutes an innovative personality, to the extent that some have deemed the endeavour

PSYCGB03

Candidate Code: LKQB1

INTRAPERSONAL AND INTERPERSONAL DIMENSIONS OF INTRAPRENEURS

counter-productive (Chell, 2008). However, others have suggested that while the FFM is indeed
capable of detecting business innovation, the focus should instead be placed upon narrower,
more focused facets specifically tailored towards business innovation (Rauch & Frese, 2007). As
well as this, the research faces another issue: many FFM studies upon entrepreneurship have
focused upon business creation (e.g. Zhao et al., 2010; Hisrich, et al., 2007), which of course is
not a characteristic of intrapreneurship by definition. While there have certainly been several
attempts to propagate scales specifically focused upon intrapreneurial talent (e.g. Lessem, 1988),
these early incarnations have since been shown to be lacking in psychometric validity. However,
recent studies have led to the development of a new scale which instead of defining the capacity
for entrepreneurship simply via business creation, it focuses in upon narrow facets which has
shown to significantly correlate with the FFM. This scale is the Measure of Entrepreneurial
Tendencies and Abilities (META, Ahmetoglu, Leutner, Chamorro-Premuzic, 2011)

META: A Promising New Assessment of Business-Orientated Innovation

At present there are two incarnations of the META scale: one with 90 items, another with 44
items. As with the aforementioned FFM scales, participants are required to respond to
propositions regarding their personality via Likert scales. However, the META consists of four
dimensions, each with their own unique associations with the FFM: Entrepreneurial Proactivity
(EA), Entrepreneurial Creativity (EC), Entrepreneurial Opportunism (EO) and Entrepreneurial
Vision (EV). These dimensions were selected based upon an extensive literature review of
studies which offered conceptions of entrepreneurship outside of simply founding businesses.
Once a scale has been completed individuals are givens scores across all of the four dimensions

PSYCGB03

Candidate Code: LKQB1

INTRAPERSONAL AND INTERPERSONAL DIMENSIONS OF INTRAPRENEURS

as well as an overall META score between 0% and 100%. Scores of 33% and below are
indicative of lower intrapreneurial potential, while scores of 66% and above indicate significant
potential. This overall META score enable employers to swiftly hone in upon employees with the
greatest intrapreneurial potential, while the individual scores across the four dimensions display
that employees particular strengths and areas in which they could be helped improve (Leutner,
Ahmetoglu, Akhtar & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2014; Ahmetoglu, Leutner, Chamorro-Premuzic,
2011).

EA considers the productivity of an individual as it relates to their confidence and selfdetermination. EC is defined as being the capacity to generate innovate, business-orientated ideas
or projects via an expressions of non-conformity. EV is considered the capacity to develop
concepts generated by EC: the drive to deliver upon innovations based upon a visualised goal.
Finally, EO is defined as being capable to detecting opportunities for growth within a given
business environment. While each of these dimensions have unique, multifaceted interactions
with the FFM, the overall META scale indicates that individuals with higher scores are most
likely to display higher Openness (.53) and Extraversion (.31), as well as lower Neuroticism
(-.24). Indeed, following a regression assessment, the FFM accounts for 36.3% of the entire
variance within the META scores, with Openness taking the lions share (27.8%) and
Agreeableness being deemed redundant when considered alongside the other four factors
(Ahmetoglu & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2013). Additional studies have given credence to the
detective capabilities of META, with the majority of the variance of the FFM accounted for by

PSYCGB03

Candidate Code: LKQB1

INTRAPERSONAL AND INTERPERSONAL DIMENSIONS OF INTRAPRENEURS

the META dimensions when assessing entrepreneurial tendencies and successes (Leutner,
Ahmetoglu, Akhtar & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2014).

As aforementioned, personality research has a long history with attempting to understand the
behaviours of individuals at work (Furnham, 2008). Yet while personality has been shown to
cater for a significant proportion of the variance regarding intrapreneurship (e.g. Leutner,
Ahmetoglu, Akhtar & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2014), additional research has considered the
influence of interpersonal dynamics within a workplace upon behavioural norms and innovationorientated potential (Tierney & Farmer, 2011, 2004; Taylor & Greve, 2006). Indeed, there is a
growing body of research which suggests that an intrapreneurial personality alone is not a
sufficient criterion for successful innovation (Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2015): intrapreneurs
must be adequately placed within their organisations network in order to be privy to the kind of
operational information which allows them to utilise their META dimensions and thus
successfully identify and actualise potentially lucrative new business opportunities (De Carolis &
Saparito, 2006; Ardichvilia, Cardozob, Ray, 2003).

Social Network Analysis: Assessing the Social Capital of Employees

Social Network Analysis (SNA) is a field of study which considers the various relationships
present within a given group or organisation (Burt, Kilduff & Tasselli, 2013; Wasserman &
Faust, 1994). In doing so, it seeks to understand how information is disseminated amongst the
members of the grouping in question. Informed by research within the fields of Social Capital
(Lin, 2001; Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998), the underlying theory of network analysis is that the better

PSYCGB03

Candidate Code: LKQB1

INTRAPERSONAL AND INTERPERSONAL DIMENSIONS OF INTRAPRENEURS

10

the placement of an individual within a network, the more social influence they can be said to
have accrued (Burt, 2005, 1992): they are more trusted, more liked or perceived as being more
capable than their peers and are therefore more likely to be privy to potentially useful
information from across a greater expanse of the network.

While there are numerous types of networking placements described by SNA (Burt, Kilduff &
Tasselli, 2013), the two considered to be most advantageous for maximising job performance are
in-degree centrality and brokerage (Fang et al., 2016). In-degree centrality describes the overall
amount of positive connections an individual has within a network, while brokerage describes
the diversity of connections an individual holds across the entire network, focusing upon
connections which otherwise would have highly limited interactions, if any, given the formal
structure of the organisation. Individuals with brokerage as said to traverse a networks structural
holes: (Burt, 2005, 1992). The core advantage of both of these two positions relates to the
volume of information being presented to them: with high in-degree centrality an individual is
privy to a high level of information from their immediate peers, while with high brokerage an
individual is privy to a broader spectrum of information from across the organisation and
arguably exposed to less benign information. Indeed, while a combination of both in-degree
centrality and brokerage seems desirable for an individual, it is brokerage which innovationorientated analyses have placed their focus. Researchers have argued that by forging a broad
selection of weak ties across a network, an individual has more timely access to potentially
valuable information, can be exposed to less benign information, can best avoid business-asusual homogeny regarding this information and can even act as a curator information by acting

PSYCGB03

Candidate Code: LKQB1

INTRAPERSONAL AND INTERPERSONAL DIMENSIONS OF INTRAPRENEURS

11

as a bridge between more the insular, closed-off sectors of the network (Hills, Lumpkin & Singh,
1997; Granovetter, 1973). The greater the level of information an individual is privy to, the
greater opportunity they have to increase their expertise regarding their organisation and its
business practices (Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2015). Given the suggested advantages of
brokerage, contemporary research such as placement within a network is a hallmark of
successful intrapreneurial activity (De Carolis & Saparito, 2006; Ardichvilia, Cardozob, Ray,
2003). Indeed, recent empirical studies have indicated that weak but far-reaching ties within a
network lead to greater levels of innovation and creativity across a range of industries (e.g. Zhou
et al., 2009; Perry-Smith, 2006; Delmestri et al., 2005).

Akin to the personality measures discussed previously, the data required for SNA is most
commonly collected via distributing questionnaires amongst the members of a given organisation
(Marsden, 2011; Wasserman & Faust, 1994). However, instead of responding to propositions
regarding themselves, participants are instead asked to rate their relationships with the other
members of their organisation via Likert scales. These relationships can come in many frames
(e.g. personal trust, perceived competency, perceived expertise), with each different frame
influencing the depiction of the underlying network. Due to the multifactorial nature of
relationships, most analyses will seek to pose several different relationship-orientated questions
to better understand the potential information routes within a network, enabling the analysis to
better detect those with significant levels of in-degree centrality and brokerage and therefore
better placed for intrapreneurial activity (De Carolis & Saparito, 2006; Ardichvilia, Cardozob,
Ray, 2003). Once the data has been collected from all members of a network, it is fed into SNA-

PSYCGB03

Candidate Code: LKQB1

INTRAPERSONAL AND INTERPERSONAL DIMENSIONS OF INTRAPRENEURS

12

specific statistical software packages such as UCINET (Borgatti, Everett & Freeman, 2002),
PAJEK (De Nooy et al., 2005) and SmallBlue (Lin et al., 2009) for analysis and, following this
analysis, can be visualised as a network (known as a sociogram) for the comprehension of an
organisations key stakeholders. Such information is of great use to employers, as research has
shown that managerial staff are often highly inaccurate at depicting the informal social networks
of an organisation (e.g. Casciaro, 1998; Krackhardt, 1990). Popular visualization software
options include Gephi (Bastian, Heymann, Jacomy, 2009) and NetDraw (Borgatti, 2002). By
utilising these methods and tools, organisations can easily gain valuable information regarding
their informal social networks and therefore detect the individuals who have best positioned
themselves amongst their peers (Wasserman & Faust, 1994).

Intrapreneurial Talent Post-Detection: Synthesising Personality and Social Networks to create

an Innovation-Inducing Environment
We have thus far separately evaluated the proposed indicators of intrapreneurship within
personality research (e.g. Leutner, Ahmetoglu, Akhtar & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2014) and SNA
(e.g. Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2015). However, as alluded to in our discussion of SNA, many
contemporary researchers dismiss the notice that innovators can be successful though their
inherent faculties alone. Indeed, there has been a long-standing body of research proposing that
creativity has a strong interpersonal component (Simonton, 2003; Amabile et al. 1996). As well
as this, recent studies comparing personality factors and network placement have found that both
account for a significant portion of the variance regarding job performance and career success,
with different aspects of the FFM predisposing particular individuals towards different

PSYCGB03

Candidate Code: LKQB1

INTRAPERSONAL AND INTERPERSONAL DIMENSIONS OF INTRAPRENEURS

13

placements within informal networks (Fang et al., 2016). While this particular study did indicate
that in-degree centrality was the most significant predictor of general job performance, the
relationship between brokerage and creativity remains strongly documented within the literature
(Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2015; Burt, Kilduff & Tasselli, 2013).

While further research is indeed merited, the studies cited above suggest that network positioning
can have a greater influence over workplace outcomes than intrapersonal factors: a warning to
organisations who wish to fully utilise the intrapreneurial talent available to them (Perry-Smith
& Mannucci, 2015). There is also the risk that even when intrapreneurs are able to achieve
brokerage positions within a network, if they become dissatisfied and depart from the
organisation the transmission of important information across a network can be significantly
decreased (an occurrence known as knowledge loss; Massingham, 2008), reducing not only the
potential for novel innovations but also pre-existing levels of organisational productivity. It is
therefore vital for organisations to modify their structures and behavioural norms (often referred
to as their organisational culture) to ones which properly cater for innovation: they must
maximise their organisations Entrepreneurial Orientation (Rauch et al., 2009; Covin & Slevin,
1991). One measure businesses can use to assess their level of Entrepreneurial Orientation is the
Organisational Preparedness for Corporate Entrepreneurship inventory (OPCE; Hornsby,
Kuratko, Holt & Wales, 2013).

By combining personality measures and SNA, organisations can not only identify those
displaying intrapreneurial talent within their organisation but also those with latent talent

PSYCGB03

Candidate Code: LKQB1

INTRAPERSONAL AND INTERPERSONAL DIMENSIONS OF INTRAPRENEURS

14

presently restricted by their placement within the organisations formal structure (Perry-Smith &
Mannucci, 2015). Once identified via innovation-orientated personality measures such as META
(Ahmetoglu, Leutner, Chamorro-Premuzic, 2011), intrapreneurs can be better catered for within
an organisations formal internal communications strategy and be better utilised within in
innovation-orientated projects, allowing for more fluid business opportunity identification
(Ardichvilia, Cardozob, Ray, 2003). Entrepreneurial Orientation interventions such as frequent
cross-organisation gatherings for those identified as intrapreneurs have been shown to increase
the potential for innovation (Kuemmerle, 2008; Licht & Seigel, 2008). Therefore, to further
promote intrapreneurial activity, organisations should ensure that management aspire to an
organisational culture of exploring innovation opportunities (Seshadri & Tripathy, 2006) and that
those with intrapreneurial capability feel that they will be adequately rewarded for successful
opportunity identification, either through involvement in new initiatives or through financial
bonuses (de Villiers-Scheepers, 2011)

Conclusions Regarding Personality, Social Network Analysis and Intrapreneurial Talent

As we have seen from our evaluative review, there are two focal methods by which
intrapreneurial talent can be detected by organisations. Firstly, tailored personality-based
measures such as META can be deployed during an organisations selection processes as well as
during reviews of their pre-existing workforce (Leutner, Ahmetoglu, Akhtar & ChamorroPremuzic, 2014). Secondly, SNA can be utilised to better understand an organisations informal
networks of association and the levels of social capital being garnered by potential intrapreneurs
(Burt, Kilduff & Tasselli, 2013; Wasserman & Faust, 1994). By combining these two methods of

PSYCGB03

Candidate Code: LKQB1

INTRAPERSONAL AND INTERPERSONAL DIMENSIONS OF INTRAPRENEURS

15

investigation, organisations can gain valuable insights into the impact their formal structures and
management styles may be having on the organisations Entrepreneurial Orientation (Fang et al.,
2016; Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2015). This can be assessed how via the tools such as the OPCE
(Hornsby, Kuratko, Holt & Wales, 2013). Interventions should aim to enable intrapreneurs to
form a larger number of weak ties across an organisation (aka. by allowing them to become
brokers; Burt 2005), which can lead to greater transmission of useful information and the
detection of innovative opportunities. Indeed, if intravepreneurs are left poorly placed within an
organisations informal network their intrapreneurial potential will go untapped and this may
lead to lost knowledge following the dissatisfied departure of that individual from the
organisation. Given the ever-increasing rates of change influencing global market forces, such
insights have never been more valuable (Lumpkin, 2014).

PSYCGB03

Candidate Code: LKQB1

INTRAPERSONAL AND INTERPERSONAL DIMENSIONS OF INTRAPRENEURS

16

References
Ahmetoglu, G., Leutner, F., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2011). EQ-Nomics: Understanding the
relationship between individual differences in Trait Emotional Intelligence and
entrepreneurship. Journal of Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 1028 -1033.
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work
environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 11541184.
Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., & Ray, S. (2003). A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity
identification and development. Journal Of Business Venturing, 18(1), 105-123.
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the
beginning of the new Millennium: What do we know and where do we go next?
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 930.
Bastian M., Heymann S., Jacomy M. (2009). Gephi: an open source software for exploring and
manipulating networks. International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media.
Brandsttter, H. (2011). Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: A look at five meta-analyses.
Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 222230.
Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G. & Freeman, L.C. (2002). Ucinet for Windows: Software for Social
Network Analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.
Borgatti, S.P., 2002. NetDraw Software for Network Visualization. Analytic Technologies:
Lexington, KY.
Burt R.S. (2005). Brokerage and Closure. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
Burt R.S. (1992). Structural Holes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press

PSYCGB03

Candidate Code: LKQB1

INTRAPERSONAL AND INTERPERSONAL DIMENSIONS OF INTRAPRENEURS

17

Burt, R.S, Kilduff, M., & Tasselli, S. (2013). Social Network Analysis: Foundations and
Frontiers on Advantage. Annual Review Of Psychology, 64(1), 527-547.
Carrier, C. (1994). Intraprenership in Large Firms and SMEs: A Comparative Study.
International Small Business Journal, 3, 52-61.
Casciaro, T. (1998). Seeing things clearly: social structure, personality, and accuracy in social
network perception. Social Networks, 20, 331-51
Chamorro-Premuzic, T. & Furnham, A. (2010). The psychology of personnel selection.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Chell, E. (2008). The entrepreneurial personality: A social construction (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1991). Entrepreneurial versus conservative: A comparison of
strategies and performance. Journal of Management Studies,

28(5), 35-50.

Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO
Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, Florida: Psychological
Assessment Resources, Inc.
De Carolis, D.M. & Saparito, P. (2006). Social Capital, Cognition, and Entrepreneurial
Opportunities: A Theoretical Framework, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40 (1),
41-56.
De Jong, R. D., Van Der Velde, M.E.G. & Jansen, P.G.W. (2001). Openness to
Experience and Growth Need Strength as Moderators between Job
Characteristics and Satisfaction. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 9: 350356.

PSYCGB03

Candidate Code: LKQB1

INTRAPERSONAL AND INTERPERSONAL DIMENSIONS OF INTRAPRENEURS

18

de Villiers-Scheepers, M. (2011). Motivating intrapreneurs: the relevance of rewards.

Industry And Higher Education, 25(4), 249-263.
Delmestri, G., Montanari, F., & Usai, A. (2005). Reputation and strength of ties in
predicting commercial success and artistic merit of independents in the
Italian feature film industry. Journal of Management Studies, 42, 9751002.
Fang, R., Landis, B., Zhang, Z., Anderson, M.H., Shaw, J.D., & Kilduff, M. (2015) Integrating
Personality and Social Networks: A Meta-Analysis of Personality, Network Position, and
Work Outcomes in Organizations. Organization Science, 26 (4), 1243-1260.
Furnham, A. & Taylor, J. (2011). Bad apples. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillian.
Furnham, A. (2008). Personality and intelligence at work. London: Routledge.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure.
Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 26-42.
Granovetter, M.S. (1973) The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6):
1360- 1380
Hills, G., Lumpkin, G.T., & Singh, R.P. (1997). Opportunity recognition: perceptions and
behaviors of entrepreneurs. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Babson College,
Wellesley, MA, 203218.
Hisrich, R., Langan-Fox, J., & Grant, S. (2007). Entrepreneurship research and practice: A call to
action for psychology. American Psychologist, 62(6), 575-589.
Hoang, H. & Yi, A. (2015). Network-based Research in Entrepreneurship: A Decade in
Review. Foundations And Trends In Entrepreneurship, 11(1), 1-54.

PSYCGB03

Candidate Code: LKQB1

INTRAPERSONAL AND INTERPERSONAL DIMENSIONS OF INTRAPRENEURS

19

Hornsby, J. S., Kuratko, D. F., Holt, D. T., & Wales, W. J. (2013). Assessing a measurement of
organizational preparedness for corporate entrepreneurship, Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 30(5), 937955.
Hoseinifar, J., Siedkalan, M., Zirak, S., Nowrozi, M., Shaker, A., Meamar, E., & Ghaderi, E.
(2011). An Investigation of The Relation Between Creativity and Five Factors of
Personality In Students. Procedia - Social And Behavioral Sciences, 30, 2037-2041.
Hughes, D., Furnham, A., & Batey, M. (2013). The structure and personality predictors of selfrated creativity. Thinking Skills And Creativity, 9, 76-84.
James, K. & Asmus, C. (2001). Personality, Cognitive Skills, and Creativity in Different Life
Domains. Creativity Research Journal, 13(2), 149-159.
Johnson, J. A. (2014). Measuring thirty facets of the Five Factor Model with a 120-item public
domain inventory: Development of the IPIP-NEO-120. Journal of Research in
Personality, 51, 78-89.
Krackhardt, D. (1990). Assessing the political landscape: Structure, cognition and power in
organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 342-369.
Kuemmerle, W. (2008). Innovation in Large Firms. The Oxford Handbook of
Entrepreneurship. In A. Basu, M. Casson, N. Wadeson, & B. Young (Eds.), The
Oxford Handbook of Entrepreneurship (pp. 311-331). Oxford: Oxford

University

Press.
Lessem, R. (1988). Intrapreneurship: How to be an enterprising individual in a successful
business, Wildwood House, Aldershot, England.

PSYCGB03

Candidate Code: LKQB1

INTRAPERSONAL AND INTERPERSONAL DIMENSIONS OF INTRAPRENEURS

20

Licht, A. N., & Siegel, J. I. (2008). The Social Dimensions of Entrepreneurship. In A. Basu, M.
Casson, N. Wadeson, & B. Young (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Entrepreneurship (pp.
511-540). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lumpkin, G. (2014). Intrapreneurship and Innovation. In J. Baum, M. Frese & R. Baron, The
Psychology of Entrepreneurship (1st ed., pp. 237-263). Psychology Press.
Leutner, F., Ahmetoglu, G., Akhtar, R. & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2014). The relationship
between the entrepreneurial personality and the Big Five personality traits. Personality
and Individual Differences, 63, 58-63.
Lin, C., Ehrlich, K., Griffiths-Fisher, V., & Desforges, C. (2008). SmallBlue: People Mining for
Expertise Search. IEEE Multimedia, 15(1), 78-84.
Lin, N. (2001). Social capital. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marsden, P.V. (2011). Survey Methods for Network Data. In The Sage Handbook of Social
Network Analysis, edited by John Scott and Peter J Carrington, 370-388. London: Sage
Publications, 370-388.
Martiarena, A. (2011). Whats so entrepreneurial about intrapreneurs? Small Business
Economics, 40 (1), 27-39.
Massingham, P. (2008). Measuring the Impact of Knowledge Loss: More Than Ripples on a
Pond?. Management Learning, 39(5), 541-560.
McCrae, R., & Costa, P. (1995). Trait explanations in personality psychology.
European Journal of Personality, 9(4), 231-252.
Nooy, W., Mrvar, A., & Batagelj, V. (2005). Exploratory social network analysis with
Pajek. New York: Cambridge University Press.
PSYCGB03

Candidate Code: LKQB1

INTRAPERSONAL AND INTERPERSONAL DIMENSIONS OF INTRAPRENEURS

21

Nyhus, E., & Pons, E. (2005). The effects of personality on earnings. Journal Of
Economic Psychology, 26(3), 363-384.
Ones, D. S., Dilchert, S., Viswesvaran, C., & Judge, T. A. (2007). In support of
personality assessment in organizational settings. Personnel Psychology, 60,
9951027.
Perry-Smith, J. & Mannucci, P. (2015). Social Networks, Creativity, and Entrepreneurship. In J.
Zhou, C. Shalley & M. Hitt, The Oxford Handbook of Creativity, Innovation, and
Entrepreneurship (1st ed., pp. 205-224). Oxford Library of Psychology.
Perry-Smith, J. E. (2006). Social yet creative: The role of social relationships in facilitating
individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 85101.
Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G. T., & Frese, M. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation and
business performance: An assessment of past research and suggestions for the future.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 761-787.
Rauch, A., & Frese, M. (2007). Lets put the person back into entrepreneurship research: A metaanalysis on the relationship between business owners personality traits, business
creation, and success. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16,
353385.
Seshadri, D. V. R., & Tripathy, A. Innovation through intrapreneurship: The road less traveled,
Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, 31(1): 17-29.
Simonton, D. K. (2003). Scientific creativity as constrained stochastic behavior: The integration
of product, person, and process perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 475494.

PSYCGB03

Candidate Code: LKQB1

INTRAPERSONAL AND INTERPERSONAL DIMENSIONS OF INTRAPRENEURS

22

Taylor, A. and Greve, H.R. (2006). Superman or the Fantastic Four? Knowledge Combination
and Experience in Innovative Teams. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 4, 723-740.
Tierney, P. & Farmer, S. (2011). Creative self-efficacy development and creative performance
over time. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 277-293.
Tierney, P. (2004). The Pygmalion Process and Employee Creativity. Journal Of Management,
30(3), 413-432.
Tsai, W. & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social Capital And Value Creation: The Role Of Intrafirm
Networks. Academy Of Management Journal, 41(4), 464-476.
Wasserman, S. & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Winslow, E. & Solomon, G. (1993). Entrepreneurs: Architects of Innovation, Paradigm Pioneers
and Change. The Journal Of Creative Behavior, 27(2), 75-88.
Wolfradt, U. & Pretz, J. (2001). Individual differences in creativity: personality, story writing,
and hobbies. Eur. J. Pers., 15(4), 297-310.
Zhao, H., Seibert, S. E., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2010). The relationship of personality to
entrepreneurial intentions and performance: A meta-analytic review. Journal of
Management, 36, 381404.
Zhou, J., Shin, S. J., Brass, D. J., Choi, J., & Zhang, Z. X. (2009). Social networks, personal
values, and creativity: Evidence for curvilinear and interaction effects. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94, 15441552.
Zimmerman, R. D. (2008). Understanding The Impact Of Personality Traits On Individuals'
Turnover Decisions: A Meta-Analytic Path Model. Personnel Psychology, 61: 309348.

PSYCGB03

Candidate Code: LKQB1

INTRAPERSONAL AND INTERPERSONAL DIMENSIONS OF INTRAPRENEURS

PSYCGB03

23

Candidate Code: LKQB1