technological skills on performance through corporate ...amiemt-journal.com/test2/vol3-no1/5.pdf ·...

Advanced Social Humanities and Management 3(1) 2016:26-40

www.ashm-journal.com

26

Abstract

Considering the growing competitiveness of corporate, Technological Skills

and corporate entrepreneurship has become a competitive advantage for the

organization so that they enable the development and exploration of new

opportunities. This study investigated the effect of Technological capability on

performance through corporate entrepreneurship among staffs of Insurance

Company in Iran. The study hypotheses were developed to determine the

relationship between these variables. The study tests thesis relationships using

data is gathered through questionnaire survey and analysis using with SPSS and

Smart PLS software. The finding of this research indicated that there is a

positive and significant relationship between Technological capability and

performance through corporate entrepreneurship. Corporate entrepreneurship

plays the mediating role between Technological capability and organizational

performance while Technological capability does not have any moderating

influence in the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and

Organizational performance.

Keyword: Corporate entrepreneurship, Technological capability, Organizational performance

1. Introduction

In this year in the stream of competitive organization, technological growing fast innovation, distinctive

knowledge development and increased competition indicated as a critical for an organization. Moreover In

today's competitive environment surrounded by rapid technological changes and innovations, technologies and

acquisition of foreign knowledge such as internal improvement are as companies vital critical success

factors.Rapid changes, has created new conditions for the development of the necessary entrepreneurial skills to

create new businesses, use of unused capacity, capacity development and solving social problems caused. The

conditions that support corporate entrepreneurship in a business environment may also create similar situation

for corporate entrepreneurship to be successful within the context of public institutions because scholars have

the opinion that corporate venture progress in a rapidly changing environment (Covin & Slevin, 1989; Zahra,

1993; Zahra & Covin, 1995; Russell, 1999).

Corporate entrepreneurship is best experiment in an environment which is more dynamic, hostile and

incongruous (Zahra, 1991; Nielsen, Peters & Hisrich, 1985). For acquisition to benefits from new technologies,

technical skills of staff must constantly be renewed and improved. Given these potential contributions, scholars

have sought to identify organizational factors stimulating corporate entrepreneurship (Heavey, Simsek, Roche,

& Kelly, 2009; Simsek & Heavey, 2011, Yiu & Lau, 2008). Corporate entrepreneurship is knowledge-intensive

and relies on new knowledge for doing things differently or doing different things manifesting in the forms of

innovation in products and services, processes, systems, strategies and markets (Teng, 2007).

Technological promote based on university researcher among the main sources of new contributions to the

alliance of technological opportunities. Indeed, technological opportunities based on the creation of new

technical knowledge have become an important source of opportunities for promotion industrial innovation

performance (Mansfield, 1995, Bierly et al., 2009, Bishop et al, 2011). Nowadays, technology constitutes one of

the most valuable assets organizations possess, as technology facilitates growth and profitability (Zahra &

Kirchhoff, 2005). Generally, such as the use of IT and organizational abilities and technical skills are

prerequisites for success. In these cases, Technology and Corporate Entrepreneurship comprise an important

Technological Skills on performance through corporate

entrepreneurship (Case study insurance companies)

Haniye Rezaei

Student of MA in Entrepreneurship, University of Isfahan, Iran

[email protected]

Sayyed Mohsen Allameh Assistant Professor of Management, University Isfahan, Iran



27

source of competitive advantage for organizations, as they enable the development and exploitation of new

opportunities.

1-2. importance of the study

This study will provide an important comparison of corporate entrepreneurship and Technological capabilities.

Despite a lot of academic work from several researchers, more exploration is needed to understand the effect of

technological capabilities through corporate entrepreneurship on the organization performance among staffs

university of Isfahan in Iran. The field of Corporate Entrepreneurship disquisition has considered as core area

study in management and economic (Malcolm, 2014). Also organization performance in widely diverse manner

as they have different vantage points to view problem. Technology capability is related to complex and

interrelated problems including several technical variable, conceptual and social variable.

1-3. Research Aim

The elementary aims of the study are:

To assess the practice of corporate entrepreneurship and technological capabilities.

Investigate the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and technological capabilities and

organizational performance.

2. Literature review of research

Review of the literature and research in three targets is located. Based on the conceptual model, which has the

independent variable and is dependent on the literature review, the observance, and is as follows:

2-1. Corporate Entrepreneurship

2-1-1. Defining Corporate Entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurship is a broad topic and can be evidenced in various contexts ranging from the most common form

of the autonomous start-up entrepreneur, to entrepreneurship enacted within a corporate context, to public sector

entrepreneurship, and socially excited entrepreneurship (Van Rensburg, 2015). Corporate entrepreneurship is

seen as an effort of promoting innovation from the internal organizational aspect (Chinomona, 2014).

Corporate entrepreneurship is a idiom used to explain "entrepreneurial behavior inside established mid-size and

large organizations" (Morris et al., 2011).The term corporate entrepreneurship refers to entrepreneurial activities

within established firms. Wolcott & Lippitz (2007), another description of corporate entrepreneurship, calling it

" the process by which teams within an established company agreement, train, launch and manage a new

business that is preference from the parent company but leverages the parents assets, market position,

capabilities or other resources"

According to Morris et al. (2011), a primary path achieving high performance would be through corporate

entrepreneurship.

2-1-2. Elements of Corporate Entrepreneurship

Corporate entrepreneurship has four major categories namely:

Corporate venturing

intrapreneuring

Organizational transformation

Industry rule-breaking (Thornberry, 2003).

The above four elements noted by Thornberry (2003) can relate to Barringer & Bluedorn,s (1999), key elements

of corporate entrepreneurship:



28

Opportunity recognition

Organizational flexibility

Innovation

Risk taking.

Table 2.1: Mapping of Elements of corporate Entrepreneurship

These elements can again be discussed in a slightly different manner as expressed by Guth & Ginsberg, who

note that the manifestation of the entrepreneurial behavior firms can be assessed by the following factors. (a)

Looking at its ability to innovation, (b) Examining its ability to initiate change and (c) Being able to rapidly

react to changing reflects the organizations flexibility (Goldsmith, 2014).

2-1-3. Dimension supporting corporate entrepreneurship

There are three broad dimensions supporting corporate entrepreneurship in general: internal factors, external

factors, and traits of employees related to corporate entrepreneurship (Srivastava & Agrawal, 2010).

2-1-3-1. Internal factors supporting corporate entrepreneurship

Coman (2014), recommended factors for a successful entrepreneurial organization: risk awareness and

opportunity focus, safe and free environment for employees, flexible network of systems, admitting alteration

and obscurity, empowering employees, flexible network of systems connecting employees, reward and

motivation to encourage innovation, procure chances for individual.

Srivastava & Agrawal, statements the most current factors of Corporate Entrepreneurship (Table 2,2).

Table2,2. Internal factors of corporate entrepreneurship

Thornberry (2003) Barringer & Bluendorn (1999)

Intrapreneuring Opportunity recognition

Corporate venturing Organizational flexibility

Organizational transformation Innovation

Industry rule-breaking Risk-taking

Factors quotation

Rewards and Motivation Fry,1987؛ Block&Ornati 1987

Management Support Hisrich and Peters,1986؛ Sykes

and

Block ,1989

Resource Availability Von Hippel 1978؛ Hisrich et

al.2005؛

Katz and Gartner,1988

Organizational Structure Sykes and Block,1989؛

Schuler,1986

Risk Taking MacMillan et al.1986؛ Bird,1988



29

2-1-3-2. external factors supporting corporate entrepreneurship Corporate entrepreneurship is not only a result of the internal space and support of entrepreneurship tendency.

The Zonal formation of a determinate market, comprise of public policies, regional foundation and culture

might have a great influence on the quantity and quality of entrepreneurship. Institutions corresponding advance

strategic patterns and situations that arrangement determinations they make (Coman , 2014).

2-2. Technological capability

The measure of technological capability was developed based on the work of Wang

et al. (2004) and Rush et al. (2007),. Technological capability reconnoiters through science student and problem

solving activities in various areas (Jones, 1997). On the other hand, the technological capabilities are not limited

to physical facilities, projects scientific collected by the staff people skills, Technological capability have ability

to function such as organizations (Lall, 1996). Technological capability includes the knowledge and skills

embedded in people and knowledge embedded in organizational technical systems. Technological capability

facilitates an organisation’s knowledge- vigorous ability to jointly equip different external scientific and

technical resources so successfully develop innovative products and/or productive processes (Jiang, 2014).

organisation’s with a strong technological foundation are better able to identify, convert and exploit new

technological knowledge than those with a weak technological base (Tsai and Hsieh 2009).

Technology capability is as running course to attract and knowledge creation through interaction with

environment and knowledge of the firm. Technological Capability explicate absorb and transfer technology as a

means to achieve higher levels of technology and performance. Briefly the corporate of

2-3. Organization performance

Organizational performance is an indicator of how to achieve organizational goals. Organization performance

embrace the outcome of an organization as measured against its intended goals.

According to Richard et al. (2009), organizational performance containing encompasses three specific parts of

firm outcomes: (a) financial performance, (b) product market performance and (c) stockholder return.

Organization performance is characterized by "the actual outputs or results of an organization as measured

against its intended outputs purpose or goals" (Lyons, 2013). Organizational performance is an analysis of a

company،s performance as compared to goals and objectives. Organizational performance entangled the

reiterate activities to establish organizational targets, conduction of the program toward the objectives

organization and make adjustments to attainment those goals more effectively and efficiently. Those reiterate

activities are much of what leaders and managers intuitively do in their organizations.

2-3-1. Measure Performance

Performance measurements at different organizational levels to control and monitor the constructions process is

essential.an organizational assessment. Organizational performance measure has been a major challenge against

business managers over the years. The problem is related to deficiency of admissible definition of performance

measurement system. According to Neely et al. (1996), performance measurement system as an assortment of

metrics used to quantify the efficiency and effectiveness of organizations actions, according to them

performance measurement system can be examined in three stages:( stage 1) the individual measures of

performance, (stage 2) the performance measurement system as a whole and (stage 3) the relationship between

the performance measurement system and the environment in which it operates.

Forza and Salvador define performance measurement as an information system that supports managers in the

performance management process that consists of two main functions: (a) as a power for linking all units of the

organization and (b) improvement processing and transmission information, activities, people،s operation and

business units (Akpabot et al,2015).

2-3-2-Corporate Entrepreneurship and Organizational Performance

Corporate entrepreneurship has been found to directly influence the firm ability to generate wealth creation, as

well as growth and profitability (Antonic & Hisrich, 2004). Corporate entrepreneurship has long been



30

recognition as "a permanence mean for promoting and sustaining corporate competitiveness" (Covin & Miles,

1999). Over the last thirty years of academic investigation, it has been commonly established that firms that

conduct themselves in an entrepreneurial manner operate at a higher level of performance than those firms that

are more conservative in nature (Anderson & Yoshihiro, 2013).

A study by Antoncic & Hisrich (2004) found that companies with high levels of corporate entrepreneurship are

more similar to have better organizational performance.

2-4. Background research

2-4-1. Internal Investigation in Iran

Ebrahimpur et al (2012) study entitled, "Investigate the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and

business performance Tabriz Petrochemical company" did, and its goal: evaluation relationship between

corporate entrepreneurship and performance. Findings indicate that between factors of corporate

entrepreneurship include innovation, take risk, initiatives and aggressive competition, a direct relationship is

observed. Yadollahi et al (2010) study entitled, " The relationship between structure and corporate

entrepreneurship" Private Bank in Tehran do, and its goal: to investigate relationship between the components

of the organizational structure (formalization, Complexity, centralization ) of entrepreneurship, it was found

there is a significant relationship between dimensions of organizational structures and dimensions of

entrepreneurship( innovation, tack risk, initiative, aggressive competition). As research Akbari et al in 2014

were "Examine the relationship between organizational health and corporate entrepreneurship" they this study

concluded that all organizational health indicators are positive and significant correlation with corporate

entrepreneurship. Vesal et al (2015) study entitled Examine the relationship between corporate

entrepreneurship and acquired factors of entrepreneurship do, Consequences include a significant relationship

between acquired factors of entrepreneurship (psychological empowerment, training, organizational structure

and skills) and corporate entrepreneurship is observed, also the corporate entrepreneurship according to gender,

age and education level investigation and different influence of factors have been established. Arabiuon et al

(2014) In their study entitled " investigate mediating effects of entrepreneurial orientation on the relationship

between transformational leadership and organizational performance "findings in this study, a significant

positive correlation between transformational leadership and organizational performance, furthermore a

significant impact variable entrepreneurial orientation mediator relationship between the two. Hadadian et al

(2015),During their research, entitled " Effect of difference and centralization strategies on performance with

regard to the role of intermediary marketing capabilities and technological capabilities" the results indicate that

is positive and significant relationship between difference and centralization strategies performance with

regard to the role of intermediary marketing capabilities and technological capabilities on performance.

2-4-2. External Research in Global

Mehta et al (2014), in research, corporate entrepreneurship, for evaluating locus of control orientation

inventory, inducement profile inventory sixty corporate entrepreneurship was studied. In this study internal

locus of control and attainment inducement are significant feature of entrepreneur.

Camisón et al (2014), they evaluating the alliance between organizational innovation and technological

innovation capabilities, and analyzes their effect on firm performance using a resource-based view theoretical

framework. they indicated that organizational innovation favors the development of technological innovation

competences and that both organizational innovation and technological capabilities for products and processes

can lead to preponderant firm performance .Martín-Rojas (2011) the research titled, " The influence on

corporate entrepreneurship of technological variables" said the support from top managers will directly

influence the organizational learning process and technological distinctive competencies and that corporate

entrepreneurship, leading to higher organizational performance. Son (2014), during his research, entitled " A

proposed Model for Firms Technological Capability Assessment under Uncertain Environment", concluded

that, firms managers can easily evaluate their current technological capability keep track of their technological

growth. Reichert et al (2014), the research entitled," Technological Capability and firm performance", in this

study relationship technological capability and economic performance is positive. In this study there are other



31

elements that allow certification the existence of a positive relation between technological capability and firm

performance.

Yu et al (2014), In a study entitled, "Entrepreneurial firms, network competence, technological capability, and

new product development performance" this study indicate positive impression network competency on new

product development and mediator effect technological capability between network competency and new

product development performance. Albu et al (2015), in a study examining the relationship between corporate

entrepreneurship and corporate governance in the case of the Romanian nonfinancial listed companies. Results

in study demonstrate differences between industries and between the corporate entrepreneurship and corporate

governance, moreover study indicate the corporate governance as a controlling and management technique

nurture

3. Conceptual model

The research is prepared to understand the policies of organizations about technological skills on performance

organization through corporate entrepreneurship. Considering previous research, and also according to the

definitions proposed conceptual model in Figure 1 you can see, the variables that influence the expression

above, is presented, which is based on the research hypotheses are formed.

Hypotheses

From the above mentioned model the following main hypotheses are developed:

1 - Technological capability has affected on Corporate Entrepreneurship.

2- Corporate Entrepreneurship has affected on organizational performance.

3- Technological capability has affected on organizational performance.

4-Corporate Entrepreneurship has mediator role in relationship between Technological capability and


5- Technological capability has a moderating role between the relationship Corporate Entrepreneurship and


4. Research Method

The current research is a practical one in terms of the type and a descriptive- survey one of correlational type in

terms of data collection. Research statistical population consists of staff insurance company in city of Tehran.

Tools for data collection, was standardized questionnaire. 200 questionnaires had been distributed and 160

questionnaires collected and analyzed. The sampling method has been random Stratified. Using likert's 5-point

scale (1= completely disagree; 5= completely agree). Analysis of a PLS model comprises three stages: (1)

assessment of the measurement model; and (2) testing of the structural model.(3) assessment of the global fit

measure In order to assessment of the measurement model used Item Reliability, Convergent validity and

Discriminant validity. In order to confirm Item Reliability in this research used 3 measures of Cronbach’s alpha,

composite reliability and Loadings. In order to confirm validity of measuring instruments, 2 types of validity

evaluation were used: Convergent validity, Discriminant validity. To confirm Converget validity, Average



32

Variance Extracted (AVE) index provides an assessment of convergent validity. assessment of Discriminant

validity in this research used 2 measures of Croos-Loadings and The Fornell-Larcker Criterion.

To assessment of structural model used 3 measures: Model predictability and fit (R2), T Values and Effect Size

(f2). Also To assessment global fit measure used Goodness of Fit (GOF).

4-1. assessment of the measurement model

4-1-1. Item Reliability (Cronbach’s alpha, CR and Loadings)

The internal reliability of the items was verified by CR and the Cronbach’s alpha. Nunnally (1978) suggested

that a minimum alpha of 0.6 sufficed for stage of search. In this research Cronbach’s alpha was all much higher

0.6, the constructs were therefore deemed to have adequate reliability.

Table 1-4: Measurement results Item Reliability Alpha, CR

We assess the internal reliability of the PLS model by using the composite reliability and Cronbach’s alpha

statistic. All variables Cronbach’s alpha coefficients are more than a minimum value (0.7). Unlike Cronbach’s

alpha assumes implicitly that indexes have the same weights, combined reliability relies on real factorial loads

of each factor, and therefore, it gives a better measure for reliability. Combined reliability must obtain a value

more than 0.7 to reflect inner consistency of factors (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).Hulland, (1999) recommend

factor loadings ≥0.4

Table 2-4: factor Loadings results.

Factors Loadings factors Loadings Factors Loadings

TeC1 5 ./CoE4 650 ./CoE13 59 ./

TeC2 755 ./CoE5 559 ./CoE14 684 ./

TeC3 773 ./CoE6 711 ./CoE15 737 ./

TeC4 712 ./CoE7 623 ./CoE16 657 ./

TeC5 786 ./CoE8 6 ./OP1 719 ./

TeC6 728 ./CoE9 667 ./OP2 765 ./

CoE1 688 ./CoE10 615 ./OP3 865 ./

CoE2 638 ./CoE11 576 ./OP4 830 ./

CoE3 643 ./CoE12 523 ./

As shown in the table, most item loadings were larger than 0.4 and significant.

4-1-2. Convergent validity

The average variance extracted (AVE) index provides an assessment of convergent validity. Fornell and Larcker

(1981) recommend an AVE value ≥0.5. (Table: 1-4).

4-1-3. Discriminant validity

Fornell and Larcker (1981) suggest that the discriminant validity of the measurement model should be examined

by testing the extent to which a construct shares more variance with its own measures than it shares with other

constructs.

For discriminant validity, AVE square root must be higher than correlations of the factor with the other

factors.(Table 4-4)

AVE Composit Reliability Cronbach’s alpha Variables

559/0 861/0 804/0 Technological capability(TeC)

512/0 913/0 899/0 Corporate Entrepreneurship(CoE)

635/0 873/0 812/0 Organizational performance(OP)



33

Table 3-4: Cross Loadings

OP TeC COE Variables

378 ./515 ./668 ./COE1

394 ./246 ./638 ./COE2

39 ./286 ./643 ./COE3

412 ./172 ./650 ./COE4

338 ./125 ./559 ./COE5

473 ./367 ./711 ./COE6

411 ./343 ./623 ./COE7

308 ./404 ./6 ./COE8

302 ./399 ./667 ./COE9

343 ./3 ./615 ./COE10

214 ./213 ./576 ./COE11

158 ./304 ./523 ./COE12

242 ./324 ./59 ./COE13

406 ./337 ./684 ./COE14

492 ./464 ./737 ./COE15

464 ./404 ./657 ./COE16

209 ./5 ./285 ./TeC1

263 ./755 ./398 ./TeC2

311 ./773 ./4 ./TeC3

277 ./712 ./361 ./TeC4

242 ./786 ./363 ./TeC5

277 ./728 ./455 ./TeC6

719 ./284 ./323 ./OP1

765 ./187 ./352 ./OP2

865 ./361 ./561 ./OP3

830 ./318 ./543 ./OP4

As indicated above, Table 3-4, correlations between indicators with own factors higher than correlations

between them and other factors. Thus, we ensured convergent validity. (Own loading are higher than cross

loadings).

Table 4-4: AVE square root and correlation between reflective constructs

4-2. assessment of structural model

4-2-1.T-Value (Hypotheses testing)

Hypotheses invested and path structural model evaluated with structural equation modeling

OP CoE TeC Variables

747/0 Technological capability(TeC)

715/0 534/0 Corporate Entrepreneurship(CoE)

796/0 583/0 371/0 Organizational performance(OP)



34

Each path analogous with model hypotheses and numbers indicate path coefficient .significant level of

hypotheses indicated in Table 5-4.

Fig1. Model1: The path coefficients of model

The results of analyzes PLS indicated table 5-4, 6-4.

Table 5-4: Total Effect (Mean, STDEV, T-Values)

Original

Sample

(O)

Sample

Mean

(M)

Standard

Deviation

(STDEV)

Standard Error

(STERR)

T Statistics

(1O/ STERR)

CoE->OP 0/583 0/598 0/071 0/071 9/057

TeC-> CoE 0/535 0/553 0/088 0/088 6/139

TeC->OP 0/311 0/332 0/07 0/07 4/43

Fig.2. Model 2: (T-Values)

Table 6-4: the results of hypotheses tests

Structural path Path Coefficient T-Value Conclution

CoE->OP 0/583 9/57 Supported H2

TeC-> CoE 0/535 6/139 Supported H1

TeC->OP 0/311 4/43 Supported H3

4-2-2. R2 criterion

Prediction power of the structural model is estimated by the R2 values of the dependent latent variables.

Table 6-5 showed R2 value related to dependent latent variables. R2 Values exceeds the minimum value of 0.1

recommended by Falk and Miller (1992: 80).



35

Table 7-4: the results of R2

Variables R2

Technological Capability 000/0

Corporate Entrepreneurship 286/0

Organizational performance 340/0

4-3. Analysis the mediating effect of Corporate Entrepreneurship

4-3-1. Sobel test

The Sobel test has been used to of testing the significance of mediation effects. We can confirm H4, that is,

Corporate Entrepreneurship has mediator role in relationship between Technological capability and

organizational performance. Because is significant at p < 0.05. , z-value exceeds 1.96 (p < 0.05) The Sobel test

is measured by the following formula:

Z-value= 𝑎 ∗ 𝑏/ 𝑏2 ∗ 𝑠𝑎2 + 𝑎2 ∗ 𝑠𝑏2 + (𝑠𝑎2 ∗ 𝑠𝑏2) Path Coefficient and Standard Error indicated in table 5-4.with

Z-value= 0/535 ∗ 0/583/ 0/339 ∗ 0/006 + 0/286 ∗ 0/004 + (0/006 ∗ 0/004) Z-value= 5/214

The results of this study are in line with the results of the García et.al(2014) the results have shown a

significant impact of Top Management Support and technological variables on organizational performance

through corporate entrepreneurship

4-3-2. appointment mediating effect intensity

To evaluation measure of the indirect effect, (Variance Accounted For) used VAF. VAF value indicates the

ratio of the indirect effect to the total effect. The VAF is measured by the following formula:

VAF= (𝑎 ∗ 𝑏)/(𝑎 ∗ 𝑏) + 𝑐

VAF= (0/537 ∗ 0/583)/(0/537 ∗ 0/583) + 0/311

VAF=0/501

The VAF value indicates that 50 % of the total effect of Technological capability on Organizational

performance is explained by indirect effect (Corporate Entrepreneurship).

4-4. Analysis the Moderating effect of Corporate Entrepreneurship

Performed model in PLS software and created new moderating variables. Results showed in figure 3.

Fig3. Final drawing model (Path Coefficient)



36

Fig4. Final drawing model (T-Value)

We can, t accept H5, that is Technological capability has a moderating role between the relationship Corporate

Entrepreneurship and organizational performance. Because is not significant at p < 0.05. , z-value exceeds

0/513< 1.96 (p < 0.05). The results of research are consistent with the results of the Ortega (2010) study that

showed technological capabilities enhance the relationships between quality orientation and performance, and

cost orientation and performance, sequential.

4-5. assessment of global model

To examination assessment of global model that involve each measurement model and structural model

calculated GOF. Global fit measure (GoF) for PLS path modeling measured of the average communality and

average R2. In this study communality variables in a row for Technological capability: 0/559, Corporate

Entrepreneurship: 0/512 and Organizational performance: 0/635 as well Corporate Entrepreneurship R2 assessed

0/286 and Organizational performance R2

assessed 0/340. Accordingly we obtained a GoF value of 0/421

.calculated variable provides adequate support to validate the PLS model globally

5. Conclusions and Implications

Today technology moreover to helping operational has become a precise part of every business and company, as

well corporate entrepreneurship led to competitive advantage and promotion performance. Therefore firms need

to accumulate and raise capabilities.

The result of first hypothesis (H1), that is Technological capability has affected on Corporate Entrepreneurship.

Standardized regression coefficient for it is 0/535 and T-Value 6/139 As a result, the hypothesis is accepted.

This finding is supported by Camison & villar-Lopes (2014), who believed that organizational innovation helps

the expansion of technological innovation capabilities and that both organizational innovation and technological

capabilities lead to promotion firm performance. The result of the second hypothesis (H2), that is Corporate

Entrepreneurship has affected on organizational performance. Standardized regression coefficient for it is 0/583

and T-Value 9/057 As a result, the hypothesis is accepted. Videlicet can be state that Corporate

Entrepreneurship has a significant impact on Insurance Company performance. This finding is supported by

Bojica & Fuentes (2012). Their results showed that both corporate entrepreneurship and knowledge acquisition

have a positive influence on performance. The result of third hypothesis that is Technological capability has

affected on organizational performance. Indicated significant and positive relationship (β=0/311, p < 0.05 (t=

1.96) t= 4/43 Also This finding is supported by Reichert & Zawislak (2014) Showed that there was a significant

relationship between Technological capability and organizational performance.



37

6. Lateral Finding

6-1. Mann-Whitney test

Mann-Whitney named to U test and for testing difference of two independent sampling which it have been

randomly selected. This test examines the following hypothesis:

H0: There is no difference between the two groups

H1: There is a difference between the two groups.

Table 6-1.The results of Mann-Whitney test (Based on gender)

Variables Man-Whitney Z Asymp.sig

COE 000/2546 834/1 -067/0

TeC 000/3048 82/0 -934/0

OP 00/2592 685/1 -092/0

Considering the significant amount all factors more than 0/05, it can be concluded the difference between two

populations (women and men) are not significant. Videlicet gender do not affected on this variables.

2. Kruskal – Walis test

This test used to determine the difference of average between several populations.

Table 2-6: the results of Kuruka – Walis test factors (Based on age)

Variables Chi-square df Asymp.sig

COE 063/7 3 070/0

TeC 846/4 3 183/0

OP 837/2 3 417/0

Since the amount of variables sig more than 0/05, it can be calculated that there is no significant difference

between these factors in the several communities.

Table 3-6.: the results of Kuruka – Walis test factors (Based on education)

Variables Chi-square df Asymp.sig

COE 747/8 5 120/0

TeC 580/11 5 041/0

OP 622/2 5 758/0

According to the amount of COE and TEC sig more than 0/05 As a result difference between these factors in

the several communities is not significant. Furthermore amount of OP sig less than 0/05 consequently difference

between these factors in the several communities is significant.



38

Limitations of the study

This study has some limitations that should be considered for future research.

1. The model has been studied within a specific domain of companies (insurance company), and this limit

generalizability to other firms.

2. Limitation in generalization results due to the limitation samples. This means that the study was only among

employees of the insurance company.

3. This study accomplished in a limited period, so, collected data based on distribution of questionnaires and

other data collection method such as interviews, is not.

4. Another limitation related to variables included in the study other factors possible affecting on Organizational

performance and Corporate Entrepreneurship

Applied proposal of Research

1. According to the results to the manager insurance company recommended to concordant with advances in

technology.

2. Managers of insurance companies in their target markets attention to obligation towards employees, clientele

and other factors which they are contacted to create the optimal picture in mind and led to consent and loyalty to

the company.

3. The insurance company must meantime ethical and legal principles, sponsors social events (accidents,…)

actively and this background codify appropriate strategy and policies

4. The insurance companies allocate part of their budget to funds and support of poor and interested to

improving welfare of the community hereby created toward competitors and good feel among clientele.

References

Akbari ,M, Shakiba,H, Ziai, M, (2014). Examine the relationship between organizational health and corporate

entrepreneurship, Journal of Public Administration. ,1(5),PP.1-20.

Akpabot, S., & Khan, Z. (2015). ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF PERFROMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS IN

NORTHERN NIGERIA SMALL BUSINESSES. European Scientific Journal, 11(4).

Albu, N., & Mateescu, R. A. (2015). The Relationship between Entrepreneurship and Corporate Governance The Case of

Romanian listed Companies. The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, 38(17).

Arabiuon, A, Dehghan, A, and Rezazadeh, A, (2014).investigate mediating effects of entrepreneurial orientation on the

relationship between transformational leadership and organizational performance, periodical of Education Management ,

1(5), pp.1-20.

Bojica, A. M., & Fuentes, M. D. M. F. (2012). Knowledge acquisition and corporate entrepreneurship: Insights from

Spanish SMEs in the ICT sector. Journal of World Business, 47(3), 397-408.

Camisón, C., & Villar-López, A. (2014). Organizational innovation as an enabler of technological innovation capabilities

and firm performance. Journal of Business Research, 67(1), 2891-2902.

Chinomona, E., Maziriri, E., & Moloi, K. C. (2014). Corporate Entrepreneurship with Innovation in Mind in one

University of Technology in South Africa. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(23), 20.

Coman, A. (2014). Sustainable value creation through corporate entrepreneurship: A case study of Univan Ship

Management Limited in Hong Kong.

comparison of start-up and adolescent ventures. In L. A. Keister (Ed.), Entrepreneurship.

Dudeney, G., & Hockly, N. (2012). ICT in ELT: how did we get here and where are we going?. ELT journal, 66(4), 533-

542.



39

Ebrahimpur,H, Salehi , J, and khalili, H., (2012). Investigate the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and

business performance Tabriz Petrochemical company, Research Administration., 13(4),pp. 121-138.

Falk, R. F., & Miller, N. B. (1992). A primer for soft modeling. University of Akron Press.

García-Morales, V. J., Bolívar-Ramos, M. T., & Martín-Rojas, R. (2014). Technological variables and absorptive capacity's

influence on performance through corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Research, 67(7), 1468-1477.

Goldsmith, M. (2015). The practice of corporate entrepreneurship and lean six sigma in the South African financial sector

(Doctoral dissertation).

Hadadian,A, Borhani, M, Rahimi, A, (2015). Effect of difference and centralization strategies on performance with regard

to the role of intermediary marketing capabilities and technological capabilities, First International Conference of

economic, Management, Accounting and Social science, PP.1-10.

Heavey, C., Simsek, Z., Roche, F., & Kelly, A. (2009). Decision comprehensiveness andcorporate entrepreneurship: The

moderating role of managerial uncertaintypreferences and environmental dynamism. Journal of Management Studies,

46(8),1289-1314.

Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic

management journal, 10(1), 75-87.

Jiang, W. (2014). Business Partnerships and Organizational Performance: The Role of Resources and Capabilities.

Springer Science & Business Media.

Jones, A. (1997). An analysis of student existing technological capability: Developing an initial framework. International

Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7(3), 241-258.

Kuratko, D. F., Morris, M. H., & Covin, J. G. (2011). Corporate innovation and entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial

development within organizations South Western/Cengage Learning.

Lall, S. (1996). Learning from the Asian Tigers: studies in technology and industrial policy. London: Macmillan.

Martín-Rojas, R., García-Morales, V. J., & García-Sánchez, E. (2011). The influence on corporate entrepreneurship of

technological variables. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 111(7), 984-1005.

Mehta, C., & Gupta, P. (2014). Corporate entrepreneurship: a study on entrepreneurial personality of employees. Global

Journal of Finance and Management, 6(4), 305-312.

Ortega, M. J. R. (2010). Competitive strategies and firm performance: Technological capabilities' moderating roles. Journal

of Business Research, 63(12), 1273-1281.

Nielsen, R. P., Peters, M. P., & Hisrich, R. D. (1985). Intrapreneurship strategy for internal markets—corporate, non‐profit

and government institution cases. Strategic management journal, 6(2), 181-189.

Reichert, F. M., & Zawislak, P. A. (2014). Technological Capability and Firm Performance. Journal of technology

management & innovation, 9(4), 20-35.

Reichert, F. M., & Zawislak, P. A. (2014). Technological Capability and Firm Performance. Journal of technology

management & innovation, 9(4), 20-35.

Richard, P. J., Devinney, T. M., Yip, G. S., & Johnson, G. (2009). Measuring organizational performance: Towards

methodological best practice. Journal of management.

Zahra, S. A., & Covin, J. G. (1995). Contextual influences on the corporate entrepreneurship-performance relationship: A

longitudinal analysis. Journal of business venturing, 10(1), 43-58.

Zahra, S. A. (1993). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior: A critique and extension. Entrepreneurship

theory and practice, 17, 5-5.

Zahra, S. A., Jennings, D. F., & Kuratko, D. F. (1999). The antecedents and consequences of firm-level entrepreneurship:

The state of the field. Entrepreneurship Theory and practice, 24(2), 45-66.

Zahra, S. A. (1991). Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship: An exploratory study. Journal of

business venturing, 6(4), 259-285.



40

Simsek, Z., & Heavey, C. (2011). The mediating role of knowledge‐based capital for corporate entrepreneurship effects on

performance: A study of small‐to medium‐sized firms. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 5(1), 81-100.

Son, L. N. (2014). A Proposed Model for Firm’s Technological Capability Assessment under Uncertain Environment.

International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering (IJITEE) ISSN, 2278-3075.

Srivastava, N., & Agrawal, A. (2010). Factors supporting corporate entrepreneurship: an exploratory study. Vision: The

Journal of Business Perspective, 14(3), 163-171.

Teng, B. S. (2007). Corporate Entrepreneurship Activities through Strategic Alliances: A Resource‐Based Approach

toward Competitive Advantage*. Journal of Management Studies, 44(1), 119-142.

Thornberry, N. E. (2003). Corporate entrepreneurship: Teaching managers to be entrepreneurs. Journal of Management

Development, 22(4), 329-344.

Van Rensburg, D. J. (2015). The Promise of Corporate Entrepreneurship: A Review of Data Analytic Strategies. Business

and Management Research, 4(1), p59.

Wolcott,R. C., & Lippitz, M. J. (2007). The four models of corporateentrepreneurship. MIT Sloan Management Review,

49(1), 75.

Yadollahi, J, Zeirat,O,(2010).The relationship between structure and corporate entrepreneurship (case study Private Bank

in Tehran), Journal of Entrepreneurship Development, 5(2),pp.55-80.

Yiu, D. W., & Lau, C. M. (2008). Corporate entrepreneurship as resource capital configuration in emerging market firms.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(1), 37-57.

Yu, B., Hao, S., Ahlstrom, D., Si, S., & Liang, D. (2014). Entrepreneurial firms’ network competence, technological

capability, and new product development performance. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 31(3), 687-704.

Zahra, S. A., & Kirchhoff, B. A. (2005). TECHNOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND NEW FIRM GROWTH: A

COMPARISON OF START-UP AND ADOLESCENT VENTURES$. Research in the Sociology of Work, 15, 101-122.

technological skills on performance through corporate ...amiemt-journal.com/test2/vol3-no1/5.pdf ·...

Documents