The Effect Of Job Satisfaction And Self-Efficacy To The Intrapreneurial Behaviors

Abstract

Organizations need to constantly make innovations due to the rapid changes in the political, economic, technological and social areas. In this sense, entrepreneurship is one of the concepts that have become more valuable in recent times. Since those which cannot manage to change might lose their competitive advantages and hence organizational effectiveness, the organizations should act as an entrepreneur, discover and employ the individuals having high entrepreneurial spirit and establish a new organizational environment to promote intrapreneurship. Today, the intrapreneurship is now essential for both private and public bodies and agencies. The citizenry who are habituated to the innovative services provided by private firms expect the same services and modern approaches from public institutions. Therefore, public service providers should also reveal the entrepreneurial qualifications of their personnel. In this context, intrapreneurial employees play critical roles in organizational change and development. 175 information technology managers from various businesses have participated in this research. Data were analysed with correlation and regression analysis. The results showed that job satisfaction and self-efficacy are quite effective to explain intrapreneurial behaviours of technology managers.

Keywords: Job satisfactionself-efficacyintrapreneurial behaviours

Introduction

According to Leibenstein (1968), the entrepreneur is the person who collects all the resources necessary for production and markets the product to close a gap in the market. An entrepreneur is a person who sees an opportunity and establishes an organization to evaluate this opportunity. When the concept of entrepreneurship is addressed, Drucker's (1985) innovative definition of combining richness-generating capacity and resources comes to the forefront. the definition of the process of creating something new that will take on the existing financial, psychological, and social risks and will result in personal satisfaction, wasting the necessary time and effort also draws attention.

The entrepreneurial intent is to create an individual's own business (Krueger & Carsrud, 1993). In this context, the intention of entrepreneurship, is a mental process that leads the individual to develop and implement the business plan (Boyd & Vozikis, 1994). Thus, for the concept of entrepreneurial intent to be understood, it is necessary to put forward what motivating factors are. When the literature on the subject is examined, three important theories are discussed in describing one's entrepreneurial intent appears to have been taken.

The fact that both the local and global business world and the business environment are becoming increasingly competitive and turbulent, has led to entrepreneurship becoming a very important behavior for established companies. Today, many companies try to find a dynamic balance between the dilemmas of control and freedom of movement, change and continuity in order to make entrepreneurship widespread within the organization. If this point cannot be found, it seems very difficult for the company to survive in a highly competitive environment. In this point intrapreneurial intentions become important in order to keep safe within the global business area. The intrapreneurial qualities are virtually required to actualize the innovations and undertake risks focusing on opportunities. The studies performed (Kuratko & Goldsby, 2004) have shown that the highly motivated and successful employers mostly have the intrapreneurial behaviors. Organizations can encourage and promote the intrapreneurship simply by way of working laborers having several specific qualifications and enhancing their motivations with the individual satisfaction.

For this purpose, empirical studies have crucial importance to investigate the effects of the potential factors including job satisfaction and self-efficacy on organizational intrapreneurship. It is evidently a key requirement that the staff to exhibit the entrepreneurial actions and take an active role in this process should be sensitive to themselves and their environment, have some personal characteristics and enjoy his job. In literature, these two factors are separately examined but studied on together, and there are insufficient arguments on which factor is more effective to predict intrapreuneurship. The primary purpose of this study is to discover the effect of both significant variables on intrapreneurship, and the second is to investigate whether there is any intermediate effect on that causative relationship.

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

Organizational Intrapreneurship

There could be an inference that modern business has been created by entrepreneurs. The entrepreneurial spirit that has marked the last century has helped several new organizations, products or services appear. In the beginning of the twentieth century, the entrepreneurial movements in the form of independent entrepreneurship continued with intrapreneurs who show the entrepreneurial actions within the established organizations later on. Currently, intrapreneurship is almost taken as one out of the prerequisites for organizational continuity.

In literature, there are a number of definitions for entrepreneurship, and at this point the entrepreneurs can be divided into two groups: entrepreneurial and intrapreneurial ones. In this categorization, entrepreneurs are described as an outstanding character of taking the plunge and investing their own venture capital (Esposito, 2006; Hisrich, Peters, & Shepherd, 2005; Luchsinger, & Bagby, 1987) while intrapreneurs are managers or workers who make efforts to identify a need and create a new solution to meet it (Maranville, 1992) or organizational elements who question, change or refuse the pre-agreed thoughts and actions to create any innovations (Diedre, Joe ,& Sadri, 1997; Hewison & Badger, 2006) or simply entrepreneurs within an established order.

Focused in this study, intrapreneurs can more easily access to resources and use possible technological opportunities than entrepreneurs. Nevertheless, the current primary challenge is that intrapreneurs have to stimulate the other individuals within the organization to realize the innovations (Hisrich et al., 2005).

How can corporations promote and enhance the intrapreuneurship? Many studies suggested that managerial support, easy access to resources, organizational structure, and motivational incentives have effects on organizational intrapreuneurship (Hostager Neil, Decker, & Lorentz, 1998). In literature, the contributing factors to intrapreuneurship are grouped under three main dimensions, individual, organizational and environmental in particular (Gautam & Verma, 1997). The individual factors may include need for success, locus of control, creativity, risk-taking, independence or being patient (Naktiyok, 2004) while the organizational ones are listed as income status, job satisfaction, work structure, or managing style, and social culture, social, or political status are seen as environmental parameters. In this respect, job satisfaction can be defined as organizational intrapreneurial and self-efficacy as individual factor (Meydan, 2011).

In the previous studies, it is interesting that there are limited studies on the relationship of intrapreuneurship with self-efficacy and job satisfaction and the effects of these two variables have not been well-considered together. Meydan (2011) conducted a study on this issue with junior and minor administrative officers working in public sector. In order to fill the void in this study, the aim was to investigate the independent effect of the two variables on intrapreuneurship and which one is more effective, especially in IT sector in which intrapreuneurship is very common, focusing on them, both together and alone.

Job Satisfaction and Intrapreneurial Behaviors

Job satisfaction is one of the most investigated factors in the literature of organizational behavior, which describes the individual level of job satisfaction. According to Locke, it is “one’s state of satisfaction or ease based on the assessment of his or her own job or work experience” (1976). Most of the previous studies have suggested that job satisfaction is influenced from organizational and individual factors and also affect the characters, attitudes and behaviors of many laborers. Researchers have analyzed the issue of job satisfaction by way of dividing into sub-factors. Increasing factors of job satisfaction are identified as success, responsibility, job itself, recognition, specialization, and growth. Job satisfaction is divided into two categories of type of job and job safety in a workplace, free workers have higher job satisfaction than salaried ones (Ahmed, Rehman, & Amjad, 2013).

In the analysis of the survey results job satisfaction is likely to have effect on intrapreuneurship due to other organizational factors. The mode of management, the organizational structure or the individuals’ income level may directly or indirectly affect the job satisfaction level and then the employers’ intrapreneurial behaviors. For instance, Holt et al., (2007) focusing on the linearity of intrapreuneurship with a variety of factors indicated that the favorable structure for entrepreneurship and the organizational processes have higher effect on it, rather than individual factors. As an organizational factor, the employers’ job satisfaction could possibly have significant correlation with the intrapreneurial behaviors (Meydan, 2011). To test this inference, the following hypotheses are developed:

Hypothesis-1: Job satisfaction will be positively related to intrapreneurial behaviors.

In some studies, it is revealed that entrepreneurial actions have a good number of organizational and individual outcomes in the established corporations. In this sense, the most studied effects are obviously the job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and performances of the laborers, the overall economic performance of the corporation, and the customer satisfaction (Holt, Rutherford, & Clohessy 2007). In a study over several public agencies, Holt et al., (2007) designed a model at the core of corporate entrepreneurship that displays its contextual, procedural and individual antecedents and outcomes. The research findings note that the personality factors measured in the five-factor model of personality have no effect on corporate entrepreneurship, whereas the contextual and process variables have significant effects. Nevertheless, more important is their finding that institutional entrepreneurial activities significantly and positively correlate with the individuals’ job satisfaction (r=0.33) and commitment (r=0.42) levels. Focusing on the effects of entrepreneurial self-efficacy on job satisfaction, Corbett and Hmieleski (2005) noted that there is a positive correlation between both variables (r=0.48). Given these findings, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis-2: Job satisfaction will be positively related to self-efficacy

Self-efficacy and entrepreneurship

In the ending of 1970s, self-efficacy theory was determined by Bandura based on the social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1977). We can explain self-efficacy as one’s perception that he or she has abilities and skills to make the achievements that people expect from him or her, and it is self-belief of possessing the ability to cope with and manage the challenging and stressful events and situations. Our sense of self-efficacy develops over time as we gain experience and competency in the intellectual, verbal, social, and physical tasks (Bandura, 1995).

Individual belief constitutes the basis of sense of self-efficacy in one person. People are usually apt to set about the tasks if they believe to accomplish or avoid them if not. In fact, the harder things to achieve provide for individuals the grounds on which they can self-develop and gain experience. If one can manage to perform difficult work, he or she will feel him- or herself more efficacious and build up individually. Those who have high self-efficacy determine the challenging but reachable goals. They have top level of capacities to manage stress and solve the occurring problems. These challenges mean for them opportunity, and they do believe to achieve these tasks.

In the studies of Bandura (2002) it was observed that despite the extreme uncertainty self-efficacy is related to the onset and ongoing of work and reduces behavioral rigidity on the way towards the goals or when facing obstacles. Increased self-efficacy allows for sense of less threat and more increased opportunity and hence leads to an increased risk-bearing behavior (Hostager , Neil, Decker & Lorentz, 1998).

Hypothesis-3: Self-efficacy will be positively related to intrapreneurship.

The factors of self-efficacy and job satisfaction were analyzed together especially in the studies performed with teachers in educational sector, whereas both were evaluated together with job stress rather than organizational intrapreneurship (Klassen & Chiu, 2010). Again in another study, the concepts of self-efficacy and job satisfaction were examined with life satisfaction and burnout syndrome (Telef, 2011). In the literature of management, it was found in a study that there is a significant and positive correlation between sense of self-efficacy and job satisfaction (Siu et al., 2005), in another study, it was revealed that any person, if he or she has high self-efficacy, may have higher level of job satisfaction (Baggerly & Osborn, 2006). In a study Cetin (2011) investigated the relationship of sense of self-efficacy with the role of locus of control and the intrapreneurship. Meydan (2011) studied the topic that the employees’ beliefs of self-efficacy should be increased to raise their job satisfaction, and in this context, the sense of self-efficacy can be more effective to predict intrapreneurship than job satisfaction.

Despite the fact that the contributing factors of self-efficacy and job satisfaction to organizational intrapreneurship are analyzed separately in literature, there are limited number of the researches in which the effects of these two factors together and the intermediate effect of self-efficacy are analyzed.

Given these findings, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 4 Self-efficacy will mediate the relation between job satisfaction and intrapreneurship.

Research Method

Sample and Data Collection

175 information technology managers in various businesses have participated in this research. The ages of participants range from 26 to 59 years old (Avr=34,86, and sd=6,64); the duration of their employment ranges from 1 to 28 years. 18 % of participants are women and 82% are men.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test the validity of the scales used in the questionnaire. One-factor, five-factor, second-level one-factor and unrelated models to check the validity of Intrapreneurial Scale (IS); one-dimensional models were tested to evaluate job satisfaction and self-efficacy scales. As can be seen from the confirmatory factor analysis findings presented in Table 1 , the five-factor model of IS gives better index values ​​than the other models; whereas the one-factor structures of job satisfaction and self-efficacy scales are valid. So, it has been adopted to use IS as a three-dimensional work. Results show that all items yield significant contribution to latent variable. Confirmatory factor analysis test results are shown on Table 1 .

Table 1 -
See Full Size >

Findings

Correlations between dimensions were searched to reveal the relationship between the scales. Self-efficacy was found to be significantly and positively correlated with) innovation (r = .43, p <0.01), proactiveness (r = .39, p <0.01), risk taking (r=.41, p <0.01), autonomy (r=.20, p <0.01) and individual networks (r = .34, p <0.01). Job satisfaction was found to be significantly and positively correlated with innovation (r = .24, p <0.01), individual networks (r = .17, p <0.1) and self-efficacy (r = .35, p <0.01). Besides, it is seen that the dimensions of internal entrepreneurship are also in a meaningful and positive relationship among themselves. Correlation of the scores obtained from the subscales with each other is shown in Table 2

Table 2 -
See Full Size >

As mentioned earlier, the second objective of the research was to find out which of the internal entrepreneurial behaviors were more effective when both job satisfaction and self-efficacy were considered together. Hierarchical regression analysis was conducted for this purpose (Table 3 ). In the regression analysis variables such as age, gender and study duration were entered and controlled in the first step, followed by the effects of job satisfaction and self-efficacy.

Table 3 -
See Full Size >

As seen in Table 3 , the model appears as a predictor of proactiveness and risk taking of gender variation from the age, sex and study period entered in the first step; but when job satisfaction and self-efficacy are entered in the second step, neither of them has any significant predictive power. In the second stage, job satisfaction, innovativeness (β = .23, p <.001; F = 3,120; ΔR² = .10; p <.001) was the most significant predictor of job satisfaction, p <.01, F = 3,075; ΔR² = .09; p <.01) and individual networks (β = .16, p <.001, F = 2,272, ΔR² = .09; p <.001).

Baron and Kenny (1986) stated that to have a mediational affect there should be three requisites. First the independent variable should affect the mediating variable; second the independent variable should affect the dependent variable; third after the mediating variable in the model, the regression coefficient of the independent variable should have decreased and the mediating variable should have a relationship with dependent variable. In order to find the meditational affect three-step procedure executed. The mediation test analyses are shown in Table 4 .

Table 4 -
See Full Size >

In step-3 after including self-efficacy as a mediator the result showed that there is significance relationship between self-efficacy and Intrapreneurial behaviors. Thus we finding showed that self-efficacy had a mediator affect in terms of Intrapreneurial behaviors.

Conclusion and Discussions

When examining the average points of self-efficacy and job satisfaction in the respondents of the survey, they are above the average in both dimensions; which means that they are seeing themselves as highly innovative and risk-bearer and can concentrate on opportunities better than the equal though they are more reluctant than other intrapreneurial behaviors. However, the very high standard deviations indicate that very high that the respondents are showing a big change in job satisfaction. In this case, the employees have trouble in job satisfaction and not much agree on the organizational environment.

When analyzing the results of intra-variable correlation, it is seen that there are high correlation between the innovativeness and risk-bearing out of organizational intrapreneurship dimensions, and however differently from common expectation, the correlation is low between concentration on opportunities and risk bearing. Whereas, in many studies these factors are considered very interrelated (e.g. Hisrich et al., 2005; Hitt et al, 2005); furthermore, in some (Tokat, 2007), these two factors are examined as one single factor. So then, the survey results reveal the distinction of the both dimensions.

Moreover, it is observed that self-efficacy has significant and positive correlation with all the three intrapreneurial behavior dimensions, and however job satisfaction correlates only with concentration on opportunities. In this context, the higher the people’s self-efficacy levels are, the more they can exhibit intrapreneurial behaviors; their increased job satisfaction simply helps them concentrate on more opportunities. As a result, in the light of correlational findings, Hypothesis 1 is partly supported and however Hypothesis 2 is fully supported.

To test whether job satisfaction or self-efficacy is more effective in the predictability of intrapreneurship, hierarchical regression analysis was made. At the first step, the variables of age and employment duration were included in the model and so kept under control for the second step. At this point, the finding is noted that employment duration is effective in predicting innovativeness and concentration on opportunities and as the duration of work in the organization is getting higher the intrapreneurial behaviors of the laborers increase. The potential causes of this result might be why one can feel higher self-confidence or in process have more commitment to the organization, followed by his or her interaction with other workers in time. Therefore, in further researches organizational trust and organizational commitment should be measured as well as employment duration and self-efficacy, and which one is more effective or whether any of the variables have intermediate effect on possible relationships should be investigated so as to better understand the concept of intrapreneurship.

The regression analysis results at the second step affirm that employment duration loses its effect when self-efficacy and job satisfaction is included in the model. Furthermore, self-efficacy can explain all the three dimensions of organizational intrapreneurship while job satisfaction can make no significant explanatory contribution to any intrapreneurial behavior when the dimension of self-efficacy is present. Accordingly, the employees’ intrapreneurial behaviors can be said to be more under the impact of individual factors than organizational ones. These findings fully support Hypothesis 3.

This result reached differs from the observations of Holt et al. (2007) reporting that organizational factors were more effective on intrapreneurship than individual ones. The reason can be the difference of organizational and individual factors in the model. Holt et al. had five-factor personality for individual factors and focused on several different factors for organizational ones in their study. However, five-factor personality is limited to evaluate only one characteristic of an individual. In this sense, it can be more suitable that those called “selfhood” factors, including self-esteem, self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability (Erez & Judge, 2001; Judge et al., 1998, 1999, & 2002) in particular should be considered. Thus, the inclusion of one out of selfhood factors as individual ones in this study may cause the distinct conclusions from the findings made by Holt et al. That’s why, in future studies, it can be useful to focus on the effects of other senses of self on intrapreneurship.

Today, organizational intrapreneurship is now a key determinant of increasing the organizational success, whether it is a private or public corporation. In this sense, the employees having intrapreneurial qualifications play a critical role in organizational change and development. In this study, the behavioral perceptions of innovativeness, risk-bearing and concentration on opportunities that the managers joining the survey have in the context of organizational intrapreneurship, were measured and how their job satisfaction and self-efficacy affect these entrepreneurial actions was evaluated. The findings obtained are that the respondents are willing to exhibit intrapreneurial behaviors and their job satisfaction and self-efficacy is effective to take such entrepreneurial actions.

In the light of the observations got, the managers responding to the questionnaire can be implied to be eager and self confident to make adaptation to changes occurring in their operational areas and even make changes through innovations. When being independent on their actions, these administrators can reasonably undertake the necessary risks and produce creative and innovative solutions to these issues in the cases that the current processes remain insufficient in solving the organizational problems. When considering that such initiative actions are desired by organizations, it is obviously essential that an organizational climate should be established to allow for the employees to exhibit more intrapreneurial behaviors, and the personnel with high self-efficacy should be employed.

At this point, one of the critical issues to evaluate the results is doubtlessly the characteristics of Turkish culture of public administration which the respondent managers have part in. For example, in the study on that Turkish public culture, Özen (1996) stated that the administrative values in bureaucracy are shaped by the dimensions of authoritarianism, self-centeredness, engagement and pragmatism. Although Turkish public administrative culture is not the focal point of this study, it is a fact that the sampling selected for the survey constitutes a significant context. With this, the features of organizational environmental valid for Turkish civil servants including promotion and performance evaluation, salary and reward system, nepotism, political corruption, etc. should be considered in assessing the study results in order to have a solid grasp of the subject. Within this context, that administrative culture and work environment in public sector can account for the relatively low correlation of job satisfaction with the dimensions of intrapreuneurship. Therefore, similar researches to be conducted in private corporations will be able to provide much more valid and reliable conclusions to reach. In this sense, there is a significant limitation in the generalization of the obtained results. Accordingly, further studies are necessary to enlarge and differentiate the sampling group.

Another constraint is using the cross-sectional data in the research design. In the data collection, only individuals’ perceptions were measured but observational data were not used. Thus, it should be taken into consideration that social desirability effect can be active on the data got, and particularly the observational studies should be designed to measure intrapreneurial behaviors. In this context, the long-term researches in future to evaluate the employees’ intrapreneurial actions with observations (e.g. the number of novel ideas produced per year, the quantity of process adjustment proposals, etc.) can be helpful to recognize and interpret the issue differently.

References

  1. Ahmed N. S. , Rehman A., & Amjad M.(2013) , Job Satisfaction and Intrapreneurship : The moderating effect of Personality Trait. Journal of International Studies , 6 , 87-95. https://dx.doi.org/ 10.14254/2071-8330.2013.
  2. Baggerly, J. , D. Osborn (2006), School Counselor’s Satisfaction and Commitment: Correlates and Predictors , Professional School Counseling. Retrieved from https://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/islandora/object/fsu%3A545159/datastream/PDF/view
  3. Bandura, A. (2002), Growing Primacy of Human Agency in Adaptation and Change in the Electronic Era.. European Psychologist, 7 (1): 2–16.
  4. Bandura, A. (1977), Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change. Psychological Review, 84 (2): 191–215.
  5. Bandura, A. (1995), Self-Efficacy in Changing Societies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  6. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
  7. Boyd, N.G., Vozikis, G.S. (1994) The Influence of Self-Efficacy on the Development of Entrepreneurial Intentions and Actions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 63-75. https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/104225879401800404.
  8. Cetin F. (2011), Örgüt İçi Girişimcilikte Öz Yeterlilik Algısı and Kontrol Odağının Rolü. Business and Economics Research Journal. Retrieved from https://www.berjournal.com/tr/orgut-ici-girisimcilikte-oz-yeterlilik-algisi-ve-kontrol-odaginin-rolu
  9. Corbett, A. C. , Hmieleski, K. M. (2005), How Corporate Entrepreneurs Think: Cognition, Context, and Entrepreneurial Scripts. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings ,2005, D1-D7. https://dx.doi.org/ 10.5465/AMBPP.2005.18778636.
  10. Diedre, E. E., Joe J. M. & G. Sadri. (1997). An Empirical Comparison of Entrepreneurs and Employees: Implications for Innovation. Creativity Research Journal, 10 :1, 45–49. https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1207/s15326934crj10015
  11. Drucker, P. (1985) .Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and Principles. New York: Harper & Row.
  12. Erez A, Judge T. A. (2001). Relationship of core selfevaluations to goal setting, motivation, and performance . Journal of Applied Psychology,86: 1270–1279. https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037//0021-9010.86.6.1270
  13. Esposito, J. C (2006). You’re the Boss . Career World, 34 (6): 6-10.
  14. Gautam, V. , V. Verma (1997). Corporate Entrepreneurship: Changing Perspectives. The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 6 (2): 234-244. https://dx.doi.org/ abs10.1177/097135579700600207
  15. Hewison, A. , F. Badger (2006). Taking the Initiatieves : Nurse Intrapreneurs in the NHS. Nursing Management-UK, 13 (3): 14-19. https://dx.doi.org/ 10.7748/nm.13.3.14.s13
  16. Hisrich, R. D., M. P. Peters & D. A. Shepherd (2005). Entrepreneurship. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  17. Hitt, M. A., J. S. Black & L. W. Porter (2005). Management. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice-Hall.
  18. Holt, D. T., Rutherford, M. W., & G. R. Clohessy, (2007). Corporate Entrepreneurship: An Empirical Look At Individual Characteristics, Context and Process. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 13 (4): 40-54. https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/10717919070130040701
  19. Hostager T.J., Neil T. C. , Decker R. L. & Lorentz R. D. (1998) . Seeing Environmental Opportunities: effects of intrapreneurial ability, efficacy, motivation and desirability. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 11(1): 11-25. https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1108/09534819810369536
  20. Judge T. A, Erez A., Bono J.E., & C. J. Thoresen (2002). Are measures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a common core construct? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83: 693–710. https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037//0022-3514.83.3.693
  21. Judge T. A., Locke E.A., Durham C. C., & A. N. Kluger (1998). Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: the role of core evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 17–34. https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/0021-9010.83.1.17
  22. Judge T. A., Thoresen C. J., Pucik V., & T. M. Welbourne (1999). Managerial coping with organizational change: a dispositional perspective . Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 107–122. https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037//0021-9010.84.1.107
  23. Judge T.A., Bono J.E.(2001) . Relationship of Core Self- Evaluations Traits – Self Esteem, Generalized Self-Efficacy, Locus of Control, and Emotional Stability- With Job Satisfaction and Job Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psycology, 86(1) : 80-92. https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.80
  24. Klassen R. , Chiu M. (2010). Effects on Teachers’ Self Efficacy and Job Satisfaction: Teacher Gender, Years of Experience, and Job Stress . Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2): 741-756. https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/a0019237
  25. Kuratko, D. F. , M. G. Goldsby (2004). Corporate Entrepreneurs or Rogue Middle Managers? A Framework for Ethical Corporate Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 55: 13-30. https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s10551-004-1775-3
  26. Krueger, N.F. , Carsrud, A. L. (1993). Entrepreneurial Intentions: Applying the Teory of Planned Behavior. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 5:315-30.https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/08985629300000020
  27. Leibenstein, H. (1968). Entrepreneurship and Development. American Economic Review, 58:72-83.
  28. Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp 1297-1349) Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
  29. Locke, E. A. , G. P. Latham (1990). Work Motivation And Satisfaction: Light at the End of the Tunnel. Psychological Science, 1 (4): 240-246. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1990.tb00207.x
  30. Luchsinger, V. , D. R. Bagby (1987). Entrepreneurship and Intrapreneurship: Behaviors, Comparisons, and Contrasts. SAM Advanced Management Journal, Summer, 52 (3): 10-13.
  31. Maranville, S. (1992). Entrepreneurship in the Business Curriculum. Journal of Education for Business, 68 (1): 27-31. https://dx.doi.org/ abs/10.1080/08832323.1992.10117582
  32. Meydan C. H..(2011), İş tatmini ve Öz Yeterliliğin Örgüt İçi Girişimciliğe Etkisi: Kamu Sektöründe Bir Araştırma. Journal of C.U. Social Sciences Institute , 20(1): 25-40.
  33. Naktiyok, A. (2004). İç Girişimcilik. İstanbul: Beta Yayınları.
  34. Özen, Ş. (1996). Bürokratik Kültür-1:Yönetsel Değerlerin Toplumsal Temelleri. Ankara: TODAİE Yayınları.
  35. Siu, O., P. E. Spector, C. L. Cooper & C. Lu (2005). Work Stress, Self-Efficacy, Chinese Work Values, and Work Well-Being in Hong Kong and Beijing. International Journal of Stress Management, 12 (3): 274-288. https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/1072-5245.12.3.274
  36. Telef B. B. (2011) .The Study of Teachers’ Self- Efficacy, Job Satisfaction, Life Satisfaction and Burnout. Elemantary Education Online, 10(1) : 91-108. https://dx.doi.org/ 10.13140/RG.2.1.4829.0400
  37. Tokat, A. O. (2007). Öz Yeterlilik Algısının Performans and Girişimciliğe Etkisi: Uygulamalı Bir Araştırma (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from Kara Harrp Okulu Savunma Bilimleri Enstitüsü.

Copyright information

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

About this article

Cite this paper as:

Click here to view the available options for cite this article.

Publisher

Future Academy

First Online

18.12.2019

Doi

10.15405/epsbs.2019.01.02.58

Online ISSN

2357-1330