Challenges and Motivations for the Development of an Intrapreneurship Initiative in a Public University

Desafios e Motivações para o Desenvolvimento de uma Iniciativa Intraempreendedora em uma Universidade Pública

This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International.

Competitiveness as a contemporary phenomenon shows that organizations are concerned about achieving parameters that enable them to remain operational. In public agencies, facing this reality is made more difficult by their conservative practices, the bureaucracy of their processes, lack of initiative and inherent aversion to risk (PITTAWAY, 2001; BERNIR; HAFSI, 2007). Therefore, the challenge is to find mechanisms that provide incentives for opposite behaviors.

In recent decades, public services in Brazil have undergone transformations in an attempt to make them more streamlined and effective, reducing costs and increasing the quality of the services provided (MAGALHÃES et al., 2006). In some respects, the managerial style has become more similar to that of the private sector. In this scenario of change, it is necessary for public sector workers to feel motivated to seek beyond their regular activities, to innovate and achieve the quality of service that is desired by society.

Intrapreneurship is embedded in this context. It presents a perspective for change and innovation that is capable of minimizing practices that hinder organizational development. In the public sector, intrapreneurship is also considered a means of achieving better organizational performance (KEARNEY, HISRICH, ROCHE, 2007; 2008; CORBETT et al., 2013). In the academic field of entrepreneurship, the dilemma remains on whether the focus should be on the process or the profile of the entrepreneur and intrapreneur (GARTNER, 1989; HISRICH, 1990). However, in Brazil, studies on intrapreneurship have not outgrown the recommendation of placing emphasis on analyzing and identifying the profile of the intrapreneur (PINHEIRO NETO et al., 2008;SCHENATTO; LEZANA, 2001; MIRANDA; SILVEIRA, 2010). Therefore, this study adopts a view of intrapreneurship as a process.

A distinct perspective is to base discussions on the public scenario on more adequate bases for reflection that comprise objectives regarding efficiency and accountability, basing every question on the assumption that the work of public administrators is not only to understand the behavior of public agencies, but also to improve the performance of these agencies (BENH, 1995). Thus, Camilleri (2007) claims that understanding the motivations of public sector workers is essential when it comes to structuring organizational environments and systems of incentives in a drive to increase efficiency in the provision of services to society. Riccucci (2011), when studying current and future challenges in the field of Human Resource Management, highlights some important topics that have not been addressed in the literature, including motivation in the public sector.

In this sense, the present study was conducted to analyze the challenges and motivations involved in the development of intrapreneurship in a public organization. To achieve this goal, the case of a Brazilian higher learning institution, denominated Alpha, which began to offer a Master’s Degree course through a stricto sensu post-graduation program was analyzed. It should be highlighted that the creation of the program in question stemmed from the initiative of some of the teaching staff. The staff were under no environmental pressure. The implementation of the Alpha course occurred in a sector of the university that had no post-graduation program. Therefore, this was a pioneer initiative in this sector that resulted in an innovation process.

To address the research problem in question, this study adopted a qualitative research approach to understand how people interpret their experiences, construct their world and give meaning to their experiences (MERRIAM, 2009).

Therefore, the conceptual contribution of the study is to articulate intrapreneurship within a perspective of processes and address motivation in the public sector through an empirical study, an unprecedented relationship in the field of management.

The article is structured as follows. This introduction is followed by a theoretical framework concerning intrapreneurship and motivation from the perspective of public organizations. This is followed by the methodology and a data analysis in light of the conceptual research elements and the findings. The article is brought to a close with the final considerations and recommendations for future studies.

Intrapreneurship is considered entrepreneurship within existing organizations (ANTONCIC; HISRICH, 2001; 2003). It refers to the process that takes place within an existing organization, which leads not only to new undertakings but also to other innovative activities and orientations, such as the development of new products, services, technologies, management techniques, strategies and competitive postures (ANTONCIC, 2007; CORBETT et al., 2013)

The emergence of intrapreneurship in the public sphere reflects concern over the development of an attitude of active administrative responsibility that includes the generation of new sources of income, the provision of better services and improvements in education for citizens and social development (BELLONE; GOERL, 1992). However, public entrepreneurship establishes a paradox, as it is a sector associated with bureaucracy, conservatism, routine behavior, risk aversion and lack of initiative (PITTAWAY, 2001; BERNIR; HAFSI, 2007).

Public intrapreneurship can be defined as “the generation of a novel or innovative idea and the design and implementation of innovative ideas in public sector practice" (ROBERTS, 1992, p. 56). Broadening the focus beyond innovation, Morris and Jones (1999, p. 74) define intrapreneurship as “a process of creating value for citizens by bringing together unique combinations of public and/or private resources to exploit social opportunities”. Like entrepreneurship, it is directed at the market but with a focus on social capital, values, and innovation in providing service, substituting profit for motivation (EDWARD et al., 2002).

Sadler (2000) states that entrepreneurship in private organizations is usually associated with small organizations with clear goals and consistent control over resources and an organic and flexible structure. In comparison with public organizations, these features bear little relation intrapreneurship. Public organizations are characterized by their large size, hierarchy and rigidity, making it hard to form shared goals and have less control over the resources used in the entrepreneurial process.

Entrepreneurship in this context can be understood as a process in which an agent or entrepreneur is engaged in an entrepreneurial event. An entrepreneurial event, in turn, refers to the conception and accomplishment of an idea, concept, service, product or innovative activity. The agent is the individual or group responsible for initiating the event. The process deals with behavioral and attitudinal components (MORRIS; JONES, 1999). The main challenge for intrapreneurship is the identification of the processes that lead to many forms of corporate entrepreneurship, and how this may produce results for the organization (KEARNEY et al., 2007, 2008).

To Kearney et al. (2007; 2008), rewards increase motivation to engage in intrapreneurial activities. It is worth mentioning that they can go beyond financial returns in the form of recognition, feedback and increased meaning of work. Just as important is the risk tolerance of the organization to provide greater employee engagement. Thus, structures that are organic, adaptable, open to communication, consensus and flexible organizational culture, facilitate intrapreneurship and innovation (SADLER, 2000).

According to Sadler (2000, p. 29), “intrapreneurship and its facilitating factors are not absolute”. Morris and Jones (1999) emphasize that the public sector has structures, rules, regulations and procedures that may become barriers to the development of intrapreneurship, such as ambiguous goals, political interference, limited political autonomy, lack of incentives to take risks and strict personnel practices, bureaucracy and maintenance of the status quo.

Despite the obstacles, intrapreneurship can be seen as an incentive for a public organization to build on its ability to provide services and generate value (BERNIER; HAFSI, 2007). Thus, there is a clear relationship between intrapreneurship in the public sector and innovation as a proactive role to increase the quality of life in society (MORRIS; JONES, 1999).

Regarding the university environment, Miranda and Silveira (2010) state that it presents numerous possibilities for intrapreneurship, a point in question being external financing from governments and associations for the execution of projects and partnerships. Moreover, Schenatto and Lezzana (2001) found that university professors (intrapreneurs) can be agents of change in their institutions, seeking power and status.

In a study on the intrapreneurial behavior of collaborators at higher learning institutions, Lizote et al. (2013) found that intrapreneurship in this context is influenced by organizational factors such as support from the board of directors, freedom in the workplace, rewards, available time and uncertainty regarding tasks. These factors lead to the conclusion that intrapreneurship is linked to characteristics such as autonomy, innovation, proactivity, aggressiveness and risk taking (MILLER, 1983; LUMPKIN; DESS, 1996; DESS; LUMPKIN, 2002).

The implementation of modernization programs in the university environment requires more than institutional support, appropriate organizational structure and reorganization of work. The organizational change needs to be rooted in changes in the beliefs, attitudes and perceptions of the parties involved in the process, and these may have a positive or negative influence on the acceptance of changes (SAMPAIO; LANIADO, 2009).

According to Sampaio and Laniado (2009), difficulties of an institutional order refer to factors associated with internal and external aspects of the organization, such as legal, financial, internal communication and organizational structure. The political dimension, in turn, has to do with relational factors, such as conflict, power struggles and tension between individuals, groups and sectors of the university organization. The socio-cultural dimension addresses habits, values and beliefs reflected in the managerial practices of the university.

Continuing the debate on intrapreneurship in the university environment, the professors, who are considered highly qualified knowledge workers, desire greater autonomy and can be self-motivated and self-directed by their expertise (TEECE, 2009; DOUGLAS; FITZSIMMONS, 2013). This author presents the case of the university as an environment that demands the fulfilment of professors’ obligations in teaching, research and providing services, but at the same time allows flexibility and freedom to practice other activities to identify appropriate opportunities for the development of intrapreneurial initiatives.

Finally, Kearney et al. (2007; 2008) claim that intrapreneurship is a possible reality in the public sector, requiring support and managerial commitment, organic organizational structure, less formalization, more decentralization and flexibility in decision-making, less strict control systems, positive and appropriate rewards, and a culture that facilitates and stimulates moderate risk-taking and proactivity. Another important aspect is capacity to adapt and receptivity to internal and external changes in the sector.

Motivational theories can be classified into two schools: theories of needs and cognitive theories (ROBBINS; JUDGE; SOBRAL, 2008). It should be highlighted that motivation for public service is not a motivational theory, but it is part of the New Public Management (NPM) approach that discisses the function of human resources in the promotion of innovation in the public sector (PERRY; HONDEGHEM; WISE, 2010). Therefore, this section addresses the motivations for public sector workers to innovate.

In recent decades, public services in Brazil have undergone transformations, seeking to become more agile and efficient, reducing costs and raising the quality standards of the services provided (MAGALHÃES et al., 2006). In some respects, their management has become more similar to that of the private sector. In this scenario of change, it is necessary for public sector workers to feel motivated to accomplish their activities, thus achieving the quality desired and needed in services provided to society. Camilleri (2007), quoting Wittmer (1991), affirms that understanding the values and preferences of rewarded public servants is essential for the structuring of organizational environments and incentive systems that attend to these preferences.

In Brazil, public sector workers are usually seen as lazy (WILSON, 1989), and are referred to by many names, such as public employee, public administrator, government employee and bureaucrat. Houston (2005) highlights that the term “public servant” is the one that comes closer to the reality of the role that these workers play.

The academic literature on public management affirms that public employees are different from private sector employees. The public sector has been portrayed as a calling, a sense of duty, rather than a job opportunity, and is characterized by an ethic regarding providing services to the public (PERRY, 1996; HOUSTON, 2000; 2005).

Efforts to develop the literature on motivation focusing on the peculiarities of the public service are still recent (PERRY; WISE, 1990; PERRY, 1996). Concern has grown in recent years over the need to improve performance in public services (HINNA; RUSSO; SCAROZZA, 2012). Moreover, in 2012 in the European Academy of Management Annual Conference, a specific section on Public Service Motivation was proposed. This section had 12 papers, the most important being the studies by Eldor, Schohat and Vigoda-Gadot (2012); Hinna, Russo and Scarozza (2012); Souza, Takahashi and Bronze (2012) and Tabvuma, Bui and Homberg (2012).

Motivation in the public service is formed as a combination of attraction to the civil service, commitment to public values, compassion and self-sacrifice (PERRY; WISE, 1990; PERRY, 1996). It is assumed that public sector organizations are more likely to employ people whose values and needs are consistent with the mission of this kind of work (CREWSON, 1997; PERRY; WISE, 1990). According to Perry and Wise (1990), motives for entering public service fall into three categories: rational motives, norm-based motives and affective motives, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1
Motives for entering public service

Source: Perry and Wise (1990, p. 370).

According to Perry (1996), the rational motives have to do with actions to maximize individual work. The norm-based motives refer to actions based on norms. Finally, the affective motives are based on emotional responses to the social context of the public servant.

The notion of management in the public sector is no different from that of the private sector, especially regarding the understanding of theories on the theme (PERRY; WISE, 1990). The very perception of individuals regarding the nature of the relationship affects their motivation, resulting in work relationships where services are offered as “presents”, highlighting the civic virtues, in contrast with services being provided through contracts, where civic virtues are not preferred (FRANÇOIS, 2000).

There is a common understanding that the motives of public employees are different from the motives of private sector employees (PERRY; HONDEGHEM; WISE, 2010). However, motivation for public service is not always based on altruistic motives or identification with this sector’s values, as debated by Perry and Wise (1990). This motivation behind entering public service in the Brazilian reality is stability and a better salary. However, intrinsic rewards, such as a feeling of accomplishment and satisfaction in providing services, despite the extrinsic rewards, serve to motivate these workers (CREWSON, 1997; FRANÇOIS, 2000; HOUSTON, 2000; DELFGAAUW; DUR, 2008; PERRY; HONDEGHEM; WISE, 2010;GEORGELLIS; IOSSA; TABVUMA, 2010).

Therefore, to be successful, the reward structures of the public sector must be conceived around more than just monetary rewards. They should also provide an opportunity to satisfy the intrinsic motivation of their employees (HOUSTON, 2000; CHRISTENSEN; WRIGHT, 2011).

The perspective in which the public sector is responsible for providing high quality services (HSIEH; YANG; FU, 2012) is based on mechanisms such as: a) increasing the autonomy of public managers to reward individuals who meet goals; b) availability of technological resources that guarantee the achievement of these goals; c) appreciation of the virtues of competition (EHSAN; NAZ, 2003); and d) performance assessment in achieving these goals (BEHN, 1995).

These concepts fall into what is known today as New Public Management. This doctrine aims to drag the antiquated bureaucracies into a new era characterized by orientation towards the market and high levels of effectiveness, flexibility and responsibility to citizens (VIGODA-GADOT; MEIRI, 2008). The theory of motivation in the public sector has significant implications for public management, suggesting that the common motivational tools in private management are not so effective in public organizations, since the reward systems in the private sector are constructed on the primacy of extrinsic rewards (HOUSTON, 2005). Despite the differences between private and public organizations, New Public Management broaches concepts of entrepreneurship, empowerment and commitment (BUELENS; VAN DENBROECK, 2007) that favor improved performance in public organizations.

The attention paid to changes in market orientation and improvement in public organizational practices depends on constant efforts concerning innovation, such as intrapreneurship in the public sector. This requires initiative and motivation. To this end, the following section addresses the process of intrapreneurship in public organizations.

The present work adopts an approach that addresses processes, in which the world is viewed as a set of stable, lasting entities with characteristics that change over time (LANGLEY et al. 2013). Thus, it is based on an ontology in which the world is composed of processes rather than things. Therefore, the entities, as organizations and structures, are no longer temporary instances of an ongoing process in a continuous state of becoming (LANGLEY et al., 2013; TSOUKAS; CHIA, 2002).

The study is based on the premise that the environment is enacted, with environment and organization enacted jointly in a social construction process of reality by the key actors of the organization and outside of it (SMIRCICH; STUBBART, 1986). Thus, as defined by Morgan and Smircich (1980, p. 494), “the social world is a continuous process, created afresh in each encounter of everyday life as individuals impose themselves on their world to establish a realm of meaningful definitions”. Therefore, a predominantly interpretive approach is adopted, through which the world is understood from the perspective of the production of meanings (HATCH; YANOW, 2005).

The design of the study is descriptive and exploratory, following a qualitative approach (MERRIAM, 2009; DENZIN; LINCOLN, 2006;) and the method is the case study (YIN, 2006), with a transversal temporal perspective with longitudinal approximation (NEUMAN, 2009).

Qualitative research is concerned with understanding how people interpret their experiences, how they construct their world and give meaning to their experiences (MERRIAM, 2009). Another important point of qualitative research is that it seeks to understand the phenomenon from the perspective of the participants, with the researcher as a “primary instrument of data collection and analysis” (MERRIAM, 2009, p. 15). Qualitative research is an inductive process. Researchers collect data to form constructs and hypotheses (MERRIAM, 2009): “the abstractions are constructed from the data in a bottom-up process” (GODOY, 1995a, p. 63).

The research method applied was a case study, bearing in mind that the proposed research problem begins by asking ‘how’, as recommended by Yin (2006, p. 19): “Case studies represent the preferred strategy when dealing with questions like ‘how’ and ‘why’, when the researcher has little control over the events and when the focus is on contemporary phenomena inserted in some real life context”. The case study focuses on the understanding of the organizational dynamics present in a single configuration (EISENHARDT, 1989). A case study permits an understanding of a significant phenomenon under extreme circumstances (EISENHARDT; GRAEBNER, 2007), providing an in-depth description (SIGGELKOW, 2007). The case study seeks to understand the uniqueness, the particularity. Thus “the researcher at least temporarily subordinates other curiosities so that the stories of those ‘living the case’ will be teased out” (STAKE, 2005, p. 437).

The selected organization is a Higher Education Institution (HEI) in Brazil, a Brazilian public university. A decision was made to analyze the process of creating and implementing the stricto sensu post-graduate program in Bioinformatics (Master’s Degree). The choice of this case is justified by the importance of the sector and accessibility to the organization in question.

Riccucci (2011, p. 137) claims that “schools and departments of public administration across the country are not producing scholars who are studying this vital area of human resources management”. In this case, the exploration of the link between motivation and intrapreneurship in a public organization can help to improve knowledge of one of the various areas of human resources.

For this, all those involved in the creation of the post-graduate program were interviewed. The data were collected from different sources, allowing the researcher to capture a greater range of historical and behavioral aspects in the case studies (YIN, 2006).

The primary data were collected in August and September 2011 in one of the sectors of the university where the Program was implemented and at the Department of Biological Sciences of the university through semi-structured in-depth interviews. Six members of the post-graduate program who were involved in its conception and implementation were interviewed. Each interview lasted an average of 50 minutes, and they were all recorded and transcribed. A script with open questions was used, based on the categories of the study. This script was evaluated in an early interview to confirm the definitive version. The interviewees were coded (I1, I2, I3, I4, I5, I6) to preserve their identities. Secondary data were collected through documental research, consulting the database that contains information on the program under study.

The method that was employed was narrative analysis, which Alves and Blikstein (2006) define as important elements in making sense of symbolic content in organizations and their environment.

Organizational narratives are created, but also altered, by human actions over time. They serve as scripts and instructions for future performances (CZARNIAWSKA, 1998). According to Alves and Blikstein (2006), narrative analysis is a method for recovering a past experience by combining a verbal sequence of causes and a sequence of events that which really happened (inference of the researcher). Thus, to the author, the narrative is the discourse of actions that happened in the past.

When it comes to conducting this research process and narrative development, Sá and Mello (2009, p. 179-180) emphasize that:

In qualitative interviews most of the speech is typically not narrative but rather successive exchanges of questions and answers, arguments and other types of discourse. Therefore, the interviewee is generally interpolated while rationalizing and constructing the story by the next question that interrupts the narrative. It is almost inevitable that, between one question and another, “tales” will arise, uncompromised, emotional and comic narratives. In other words, stories that make us lean, as long as we do not allow ourselves to hear them as such

This analysis method provides important insights for understanding organizational processes (PENTLAND, 1999), as it is through their retrospective nature that it is possible to understand how the participants in the narrative make sense of their world. Each individual in the narrative has different ways of making sense of events. Thus, Pentland (1999, p. 713) defines the narrative as “a purse sequence of events which basis is used to make tradeoffs and comparisons”. In the following table, the narrative properties that guided the data analysis are presented:

Table 2
Narrative properties

Source: Adapted from PENTLAND (1999, p. 713)

The narratives for each interview were constructed using the narrative properties of Pentland (1999). In this context, the narrative analysis method was coherent with the retrospective analysis of the intrapreneurial process and motivation in the public sector.

The present study sought to analyze the challenges and motivations for the development of an intrapreneurial initiative to implement a post-graduation program. The analysis served as a model for identifying potential areas for meaningful theoretical and empirical contributions in public organizations, more specifically regarding the process of intrapreneurship and motivation in public education organizations, as well as a source of information for practitioners interested in these challenges, particularly in educational systems.

As for the challenges in the development of the intrapreneurial initiative, we identified factors that facilitated and hindered the process: individual (intrapreneurial initiative and motivation), organizational (structure, management, culture and politics) and institutional (federal program of incentives to expand courses, such as the REUNI). These factors certainly had an impact on work motivation, sometimes challenging the professors, sometimes stimulating them.

Regarding the difficulties, these were analyzed in the three dimensions in accordance with Sampaio and Laniado (2009): institutional, political and socio-cultural. In the institutional dimension, the difficulties were the bureaucratic procedures, limited physical structure and lack of resources for the acquisition of new technologies. In the political dimension, there was difficulty in standardizing communication between the professors from the two sectors involved in the course, as some professors are from the field of informatics and other professors are from the field of biochemistry. This occurred because the course is multidisciplinary. In the socio-cultural dimension, there was some difficulty in implementing the course, as it was a novelty in the sector, which was not used to post-graduation courses and research. Another difficulty was that some professors lacked experience.

Several motives for creating the program were identified in the three categories of Perry and Wise (1990). These motives were rational, norm-based and affective. The three dimensions were shown to be present in specific aspects, but none of them can be ignored in studies on motivation in the public sector. Therefore, according to the authors, it seems clear that there is a certain difference between government management and private business regarding the theory of public service motivation.

There was a propensity to civic virtues, since there are no extrinsic rewards or increases in remuneration for those involved in the intrapreneurial initiative (FRANCOIS, 2000; HOUSTON, 2000; PERRY; HONDEGHEM; WISE, 2010; GEORGELLIS; IOSSA; TABVUMA, 2010). These results show that the accomplishment of this paper is in itself rewarding, although individual interests have also influenced the decision. The rewards other than the financial ones, such as recognition, achievement of professional aspirations and lending more weight to the meaning of work were great stimulators of the initiative (KEARNEY; HISRICH; ROCHE, 2007; 2008; GEORGELLIS et al., 2010).

On the other hand, facilities were also mentioned. These include autonomy in the development of projects, as it is a public organization, support from the management for the development of new ideas and institutional support from the top management of the university. Other factors were the good relationship between professors of the sector, cooperation between the two sectors involved, the experience of some of the professors in other post-graduation programs, no resistance to the creation of the program, participative decision-making and inclusion in the program REUNI.

Therefore, the human role is fundamental for the development of initiatives of change and creation of new projects, in accordance with Sampaio and Laniado (2009). The motivations were strong enough for the professors to accept the challenge and seize the opportunity, remaining motivated regarding the project.

In short, from the results obtained, we believe that exploring the link between work motivation and intrapreneurship in the public sector can lead to advances in knowledge in one of the many areas of the organizational behavior field. These areas of research have received little attention, and studies like this are important to the field.

We also have some suggestions for future research, such as new studies on motivation in public educational organizations involving other motivational constructs and studies on motivation and intrapreneurship in public organizations in other sectors such as health and security. There are promising new categories for studies that integrate the topic of motivation in the public sector such as organizational climate, organizational culture, organizational learning and the development of organizational competences.

Intrapreneurship is still in its infancy in terms of its development as a field of research (ANTONCIC; HISRICH, 2003; CHRISTENSEN, 2004). This study contributes to the development of the field in terms of understanding the intrapreneurial process in public organizations, specifically public higher learning institutions. The scarcity of studies on HLI limit the identification of the intrapreneurial profile, as shown by Schenatto and Lezana (2001), Miranda and Silveira (2010) and Lizote et al. (2013).

One of the methodological contributions of the study is its use of narrative analysis, which, according to Montenegro (2013), is not used very much in articles, theses and dissertations in the field of Strategy and Organization. The systematization presented in the narrative structure of Pentland (1999) can aid the replication of this method.

The practical justification of the study lies in its contribution to the study of public and private organizations in general in the development of an entrepreneurial attitude to promote innovation in their services, products and processes to ensure better performance.

Finally, a limitation of the study lies in the longitudinal and processual nature of the research question, in which the phenomenon should be studied over time. To mitigate this limitation, a longitudinal approximation was made through document analysis and in-depth interviews to capture the phenomenon as a whole.