Introduction
According to Ratten and Tajeddini (2019), research on sports entrepreneurship should focus on different contexts and types of sports that allow their comparison. Thus, as Lara-Bocanegra (2023) states, the study of intrapreneurship in sports should meet the guidelines of these authors. To this must be added the importance that intrapreneurship is acquiring in the sports sector (Lara-Bocanegra, 2023), whose closest exemplar could be found in the crisis derived from COVID-19 (Nicolás-Martínez & Rubio-Bañón, 2020). In that situation, organisations had to reinvent themselves to face the uncertainty, in which intrapreneurial individuals played a crucial role in the innovation and competitive processes (Blanka, 2019) triggered in sports organisations. Garzón (2005) indicates that these individuals, called intrapreneurs, can detect early signs of new opportunities and threats, seeking such opportunities and trying to turn threats into opportunities to introduce early change in organisations.
Intrapreneurship, as a sub-theme of entrepreneurship, is increasing its importance and relevance in the research field (Blanka, 2019; Farrukh & Ghazzawi, 2024; Lara-Bocanegra et al., 2024a). However, in the literature, there is no clear classification of the concepts related to this term, so organisational entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial orientation and intrapreneurship are used as synonyms from different perspectives or roles, all referring to the creation of something new in an existing organisation (Blanka, 2019; Kraus et al., 2019). Intrapreneurship becomes particularly important in business development, providing competitive positions, growth and development, and using innovation as the main support for growth (Galván-Vela et al., 2021; Ghura et al., 2022; Hernández-Perlines et al., 2022). Bogatyreva et al. (2022) stress the need to expand research on the consequences of intrapreneurship at the individual level, as the literature is primarily focused on the benefits that these subjects bring to organisations.
Anzeige
While it is true that entrepreneurship—and intrapreneurship—share some characteristics across sectors, some salient differences warrant their specific study in the sports context (Pellegrini et al., 2020; Ratten, 2010). For Ball (2005), the sports industry is characterised by constantly evolving consumer needs and desires and requires a particularly salient innovation effort to meet and/or exceed those expectations. In line with this assessment, Jones et al. (2017) indicated that the constant quest for innovation that characterises the sports sector often motivates individuals to engage in entrepreneurship. Furthermore, Ratten and Ferreira (2017) argue that understanding entrepreneurship in sports is key to fostering its growth and development. Despite this, in the field of sports, intrapreneurship is not a widely developed concept, as it is approached disparately and unspecifically (Lara-Bocanegra et al., 2021), although there has been a boom in recent years (González-Serrano et al., 2023; Lara-Bocanegra et al., 2022, 2023, 2024a, b; Mazzei & Kirkpatrick, 2024). Originally, the term intrapreneurship was coined by Pinchot (1985) and refers to employees acting as entrepreneurs within organisations, seeking organisational benefit. It is also a concept linked to employee initiatives to develop new projects within the boundaries of their organisation (Blackburn et al., 2014). Pinchot and Soltanifar (2021) present intrapreneurs as motivated, proactive and action-oriented employees, capable of assuming the responsibility for turning an idea into a profitable business reality for their organisation. González-Serrano (2019), for his part, presents intrapreneurship as a special type of entrepreneurship, which has different prototypical characteristics, such as taking the initiative, recognising opportunities, generating novel elements and some degree of risk-taking. Likewise, intrapreneurship positively impacts organisations’ performance and competitiveness, both in the short and long term, so intrapreneurial competencies should be enhanced in the university environment (González-Serrano et al., 2019). Thus, several authors have focused their efforts on exposing the benefits of intrapreneurship in the university environment, exposing a current of development and research on this line of research (Engzell et al., 2024; Flores et al., 2024; Henry & Lahikainen, 2024; Kanısoy et al., 2024; Klofsten et al., 2024; Urbano et al., 2024).
Lara-Bocanegra et al. (2021) presented intrapreneurship in sports as a research niche, given the need to delve into the precursors/facilitators of intentions and subsequent intrapreneurial behaviours, as well as the need to create instruments to detect individuals with these behaviours in organisations. In this line, in the sports field, although there is a tool to measure intrapreneurial intentions in Sports Science students (González-Serrano et al., 2019) that is not related to the professional sector, there is no specific instrument to assess the intrapreneurial behaviours of employees of sports organisations. Therefore, the main objective of this work is to design and validate an assessment instrument to detect employees with intrapreneurial behaviours in sports organisations.
The work is structured in six sections: it begins with an introduction, followed by a theoretical foundation section that addresses the framework and current situation from which this research emanates. The third section presents the methodology used, the participants, the data collection procedure, and data analysis. The fourth section shows the results of the research. The fifth section contains the discussion, while the sixth section presents the conclusions reached.
Theoretical framework
In terms of the main concepts that make up intrapreneurial behaviour in the scientific literature, the following can be found: a tendency to risk, innovation, proactivity, autonomy and achievement orientation (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2001; Covin & Slevin, 1991; Krauss et al., 2005; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996; Stull & Singh, 2005). Among them, two concepts are considered fundamental: innovation and risk-taking (Moriano et al., 2009). Innovation is understood as implementing original and appropriate ideas developed through creativity (Amabile, 1997), so innovation and creativity are closely linked concepts (Morris & Kuratko, 2002). Risk-taking can be defined as the preference for situations that can benefit the organisation if they are successful, but also important consequences in case of worker error (Brockhaus, 1990). Proactivity is another closely related concept. The literature extends the idea of proactivity as a strategy that permits competing, creating new opportunities, and avoiding imitating competitors. Hence, proactivity implies a strong leadership role to take the initiative in finding and exploiting opportunities (Covin & Slevin, 1991; Kraus et al., 2019; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). However, other concepts have also been linked to intrapreneurship in the literature, such as opportunity recognition and prioritising internal projects (Garzón, 2005; González-Serrano, 2019; Krauss et al., 2005; Moriano et al., 2009). Thus, opportunity recognition is considered necessary for the intrapreneur’s development because, to take advantage of an opportunity, it must first be recognised (Moriano et al., 2009). In this sense, for Moriano et al. (2009), opportunity recognition is one of the most characteristic dimensions of intrapreneurial behaviour, which is becoming increasingly important. Intrapreneurs can explore and recognise the first signs of changes in the market, either new opportunities and/or threats, introducing the changes that are appropriate for the organisation’s benefit (Garzón, 2005; Moriano et al., 2009). Lastly, the dimension of prioritising the internal project is addressed. Intrapreneurs are highly committed to their organisations and their work and are attracted to continuous learning within the boundaries of their organisation (González-Serrano, 2019; Govindarajan & Desai, 2013; Kuratko & Hodgetts, 2001). Based on the above and after analysing the different definitions and scientific contributions, an intrapreneur could be defined as an employee with extensive experience and/or knowledge in a given sector, which allows them to detect new business opportunities and/or market niches to create and/or redesign ideas/products/services/businesses within the limits and security provided by an existing organisation (Lara-Bocanegra, 2023).
Anzeige
The development of workers’ intrapreneurial behaviours depends on various factors, well interconnected through Ajzen’s (1991) theory of planned behaviour, which has become the most widely used theory to explain and predict human behaviour (Chouchane et al., 2023; González-Serrano, 2019; Kanısoy et al., 2024). Additionally, González-Serrano (2019) and Naia et al. (2017) state that much of human behaviour can be planned, so it is preceded by an intention. According to Ajzen (1991), intentions are influenced by different variables such as attitude towards the behaviour, subjective norm, and perceived control (see Fig. 1).
Fig. 1
Theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1991)
In terms of attitude towards behaviour, Ajzen (1991) explains that it refers to the positive and/or negative evaluations towards the behaviour, which can be influenced by different beliefs of the subject (González-Serrano, 2019). In other words, attitude is determined by each of an individual’s beliefs towards the object (thing, person, or institution) and the positive/negative evaluation associated with the beliefs about each of those objects (Carpi-Ballester & Breva-Asensio, 2001). Subjective norm refers to the social pressure perceived to perform or not perform a behaviour, comprising normative beliefs and the motivation to comply with these beliefs (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Carpi-Ballester & Breva-Asensio, 2001). Lastly, perceived behavioural control refers to personal beliefs about control of the factors related to the behaviour (Ajzen, 1991; González-Serrano, 2019; Naia et al., 2017). The perception of control is formed by both internal (perception of ability) and external variables (opportunity for action, obstacles, time, cooperation, etc.) (Carpi-Ballester & Breva-Asensio, 2001). At Ajzen (1991) model, perceived control differs from the viability of the Entrepreneurial Event Model (Shapero & Sokol, 1982) in that it not only addresses capacity beliefs but also includes the ability to control factors related to behaviour (González-Serrano, 2019).
For Naia et al. (2017), the attitude towards a behaviour plays a fundamental role in manifesting intentions and, subsequently, the behaviour, whereas the subjective norm is less predictive for individuals with a high degree of perceived control. Similarly, González-Serrano et al. (2018) state that intention has more weight in the attitude towards a behaviour than the subjective norm and perceived behavioural control.
Building on the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1991), which, as mentioned, is intimately connected to entrepreneurship in sports, it is suggested that this model be adopted to predict intrapreneurial behaviours in sports organisations through its various constructs. This approach has already been tested in the sports area (González-Serrano et al., 2023), proving to be an adequate theoretical model for predicting intentions.
Intrapreneurship in sport and tools
For some authors, intrapreneurial behaviours occur in employees of the lower-middle level in the organisation’s hierarchical scale, who, due to their lower status and feelings of dissatisfaction, have a strong urge to create something new that will help them to advance in their professional careers (Battilana, 2006; Howard-Grenville, 2007; Kraus et al., 2019; Meyerson & Scully, 1995). Moreover, when these employees have high educational levels and/or experience in the sector and high job satisfaction, they present strong intentions of intrapreneurship in the sports sector (Lara-Bocanegra et al., 2022). However, the scientific literature clearly shows that the characteristics of intrapreneurs must be enhanced by their immediate superiors in the organisation for them to flourish, highlighting the importance of support and trusting that intrapreneurial behaviour will appear (Deprez et al., 2021; Gupta et al., 2004; Hornsby et al., 2002; Kuratko et al., 2005; Ling et al., 2008; Ribeiro & Comeche, 2007; Wakkee et al., 2008). Moreover, thanks to the development of a leadership style that fosters creativity and entrepreneurship by superiors—managers and middle managers—they can provide intrapreneurs with resources, knowledge, networks, etc., so they will feel valued and stimulated toward intrapreneurial behaviour (Moriano et al., 2014). In this sense, Moriano et al. (2014) report that transactional leadership negatively influences intrapreneurship, whereas transformational leadership positively influences its emergence. These authors indicate that organisational identification significantly and strongly impacts intrapreneurial behaviour. Therefore, senior managers should be responsible for acting as intrapreneurs, facilitating and supporting their subordinates to develop their ideas without fearing that they will be ignored or even prevented from undertaking them on their own (Kuratko et al., 2005). In this sense, the company’s entrepreneurial orientation may facilitate certain behaviours, in this case, intrapreneurship (Badoiu et al., 2020). Thus, entrepreneurial orientation is linked to intrapreneurship, as reflected in the academic literature (Bani-Mustafa et al., 2021; Bouchard & Basso, 2011; Kraus et al., 2019; Razavi & Ab Aziz, 2017). Entrepreneurial orientation is related to higher intrapreneurial potential (Bani-Mustafa et al., 2021; Kraus et al., 2019; Razavi & Ab Aziz, 2017). For their part, Bouchard and Basso (2011) indicated that entrepreneurial orientation does not always correlate with high levels of intrapreneurship because organisations may present a double model: one in which the owner generates a high entrepreneurial orientation and encourages intrapreneurship and one in which the owner neither encourages nor generates intrapreneurship. Both models can achieve professional success. However, it is clear that in organisations with a positive tendency towards entrepreneurial orientation, a creative spiral will be generated linked to the emergence of intrapreneurial intentions and behaviours.
Thus, organisational entrepreneurial orientation has recently emerged as a field of work (Kauppinen & Escamilla-Fajardo, 2020; Kraus et al., 2019). As defined by Escamilla-Fajardo et al. (2018), it can be understood as “the intentions and actions of managers acting in a dynamic generative process aimed at creating new organisations or opportunities”, and where managers act as representatives of the organisation (Kraus et al., 2019). This construct has evolved because an organisation is not composed solely and exclusively of the Chief Executive Officer so that any individual can propose innovative actions (Hughes et al., 2018). Hence, the construct of individual entrepreneurial orientation emerges (Bolton & Lane, 2012; Covin et al., 2020; Kraus et al., 2019), defined as employees’ tendency toward innovative, proactive and risk-taking behaviours in the workplace (Covin et al., 2020). Thus, individual entrepreneurial orientation is grounded in and motivated by the actions of superiors, whereas intrapreneurship emanates from the employees themselves and is fostered by a facilitating context that enables its development. A greater degree of interpretation and definition is needed so they are not used as synonyms, as can occur in the current literature (Blanka, 2019; Kraus et al., 2019; Lara-Bocanegra, 2023).
In another sense, the evaluation of opportunities is a very important part of intrapreneurship. The intrapreneurial process is composed of two phases: the exploration or recognition of opportunities and the exploitation or implementation of the opportunity, and both are essential for the process to be successful (Eckhardt & Shane, 2003; Heinze & Weber, 2016; Kraus et al., 2019; Sarasvathy, 2001). The creation of a new product, service, or process can be enhanced by engaging in exploratory activities, and individuals who engage in more exploratory work are more likely to detect a greater number of opportunities, especially new ones (Kraus et al., 2019). Moreover, the relationship between creation and exploitation is evident in intrapreneurship (Heinze & Weber, 2016) to the extent that, in some organisations, the person who explores and discovers the opportunity is the same person who develops and implements it, thus achieving a complete intrapreneurial process (Heinze & Weber, 2016; Kraus et al., 2019).
Lara-Bocanegra et al. (2021) concluded the need for valid and reliable instruments to detect individuals with intrapreneurial behaviour in sports because this area is a growing sector and one of the most important nationally and internationally. In addition, the literature indicates a great similarity between sports and entrepreneurship, revealing a greater occurrence of this type of behaviour in people linked to the sector due to its intrinsic characteristics (Holienka et al., 2018). Stull and Singh (2005) created a questionnaire to detect intrapreneurial behaviour in employees of non-profit organisations, based on the constructs of innovation (4 items) and risk-taking (3 items). Moriano et al. (2009) used this instrument in various organisations (e.g., service companies, transportation and logistics companies, and educational centres, among others) but never in sports organisations. They obtained a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.845 as the scale’s reliability. Gawke et al. (2019) developed instruments linked to strategic renewal behaviour (4 items) and risk behaviour (4 items) in individuals related to the sports field, with Cronbach’s alpha values of 0.94 in both dimensions.
Based on the instrument proposed by Stull and Singh (2005) and to bring it closer to the sports field, González-Serrano et al. (2018, 2019) presented a valid and reliable tool to detect intrapreneurship intention in Sports Science university students. These authors used the same dimensions and number of items employed by the previously mentioned authors (Moriano et al., 2009; Stull & Singh, 2005). In this case, the reliability of the overall scale in its English version presented a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.90 (0.90 for the innovation dimension and 0.84 for risk-taking), whereas, in its Spanish version, it presented an overall value of 0.89 (0.90 for innovation and 0.83 for risk-taking).
Despite having proposed different assessment instruments, their diverse limitations encourage the development of a new and specific tool for sports organisations. For example, the existing instruments do not include all the dimensions that the scientific literature considers relevant; there is no validated tool in sports organisations to detect individuals with intrapreneurial behaviours; and finally, as Holienka et al. (2018) stated, the similarities between sports and entrepreneurship favour athletes’ greater tendency toward this type of behaviour, and perhaps also toward intrapreneurship.
All of the above corroborates the need for research focused on intrapreneurship both in individuals and in the organisations themselves, which, to some extent, follows the indications and suggestions of various authors (Blanka, 2019; Lara-Bocanegra et al., 2021; Ratten & Tajeddini, 2019). Hence, the present work aims to design, create and validate an instrument to detect employees with intrapreneurial behaviours in sports organisations.
Methodology
Sample selection
The sample comprised 411 participants (57.2% male and 42.8% female) with an average age of 32.68 years (± 7.95), workers of sports organisations. Concerning the sport to which the organisation is dedicated, 66% (n = 271) has to do with the fitness industry, 12.4% (n = 51) with racket sports, and the remaining 21.6% (n = 89) are within the “multisport” category (generated for all those sports modalities that did not present at least 25 participants), which includes football, triathlon, swimming, water polo, skating and climbing. Regarding the position held in the organisation, 64.5% (n = 265) are sports technicians, 13.6% (n = 56) belong to the administration/reception/customer service, 7.5% (n = 31) are sports managers/coordinators, 7.3% (n = 30) are directors/managers of the sports organisation, 2.2% (n = 9) are part of maintenance/cleaning staff, 0.7% (n = 3) are administration/reception/customer service managers, 0.7% (n = 3) are maintenance/cleaning managers, and the remaining 3.4% (n = 14) are engaged in other tasks. Finally, concerning the size of the organisation, 9.2% (n = 38) are micro companies (less than 10 workers), 19.7% (n = 81) are small companies (between 10 and 49 workers), 16.1% (n = 66) are medium companies (between 50 and 249 workers), and the remaining 55.0% (n = 226) are large companies (more than 250 workers).
Procedure
Phase 1. Development of the instrument
The development of the instrument “Intrapreneurial Behaviour in Sports Organizations” (COINDE, an acronym in Spanish for “Intrapreneurial Behaviors in Sports Organizations” ) followed the phases proposed by Muñiz and Fonseca-Pedrero (2019). Thus, after contextualising and developing the definition of the construct to be investigated (intrapreneurship), we created a bank of items based on the analysis of instruments available in the literature and their dimensions (see Table 1). No item was transferred directly from another scale to the present scale because (i) we are not analysing/seeking to analyse intrapreneurial intention but rather intrapreneurial behaviour and (ii) many of the items were constructed based on the coincidence in the “themes” reflected in the different questionnaires on intrapreneurial intention. For example, the questionnaire by Stull and Singh (2005) states, “I take calculated risks despite the possibility of failure”. The same question appears in the questionnaire by Moriano et al. (2009), but in Spanish, “Asumo riesgos calculados a pesar de la posibilidad de fracasar”, and in the questionnaire by González-Serrano et al. (2019), “Asumiría riesgos calculados a pesar de la posibilidad de fracasar”. From their fusion arises our ítem, “Estudio y asumo determinados riesgos para poder desarrollar nuevas ideas”, attending to behaviours instead of intentions. Thus, the tool used in this research was initially composed of 46 items divided into five dimensions: creativity/innovation, risk-taking, proactivity, recognition of opportunities, and priority of the internal project.
Phase 2. Content validation of the instrument
Content validity was determined to provide evidence of the instrument’s suitability for the content area to be measured (Muijs, 2011). For this purpose, the authors of this paper designed and coordinated the validation phases, starting with the use of the Delphi methodology (Bulger & Housner, 2007; Lugo-López et al., 2024; Powell, 2003), for the configuration of an expert group where according to Lugo-López et al. (2024) a variety of experts from different branches generate a value judgement of the questionnaire, always guaranteeing anonymity among the participating members of the group of judges. For the present work, a group composed of 13 people (researchers who had published in the field of sports management and professionals who managed sports organisations) was set up, maintaining anonymity at all times to avoid possible influences among them, who were contacted by e-mail where they were invited to participate including an explanation of the objectives of the study and the details of participation. This group of experts rated the 46-item draft using a 10-point scale (1 = completely disagree; 10 = completely agree) specifying the items’ appropriateness and comprehension and assessed the questionnaire globally, and finally, a qualitative evaluation option was offered (Ortega et al., 2008) that would allow any suggestions, observations or corrections to be made to the proposed dimensions. Following Aiken’s validation coefficient V (Aiken, 1985), (i) items with a coefficient lower than 0.7 or a confidence interval lower than 95% were eliminated; (ii) items with a coefficient between 0.71 and 0.8 were modified; and (iii) items with a coefficient higher than 0.81 were accepted (Bulger & Housner, 2007). At the qualitative level, some items were modified or eliminated upon the recommendation of at least three judges or an expert, and the coordinating group agreed. After content validation, the tool comprised 26 items divided into five dimensions, which was sent back to the group of experts for a new round of revision with no changes in the second version of the tool.
Phase 3. Comprehension validity
The 26-item questionnaire was tested on 36 employees of sports organisations related to skating, the fitness industry and racket sports (mean age 28.25 years ± 7.95; women = 41.7% and men = 58.3%), who assessed item comprehension and adequacy. This process did not produce any modifications or eliminations, so the questionnaire maintained the 26 items (Table 1).
Phase 4. Data collection
Random convenience sampling was used for data collection among employees of sports organisations, which allowed direct access to the sample through the researchers’ network of contacts. After various sports entities at both regional and national levels (e.g., sports federations, private sports clubs of different disciplines, gym chains, etc.) had agreed to collaborate, the surveys were distributed through Google Forms to ensure easy access and complete collection of responses. At the beginning of the study, participants were informed of the objectives of the research, the voluntary nature of their participation and the exclusive use of the data for scientific purposes, always maintaining confidentiality. Participants had to give their informed consent before completing the survey.
Scale development
Following the development process, the instrument used to detect the intrapreneurial behaviour of employees of sports organisations is composed of 26 items divided into five dimensions: creativity/innovation (CRI; six items), risk-taking (RT; five items), proactivity (PRO; four items), recognition of opportunities (REC; five items) and priority of the internal project (PIP; six items). The responses are rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1(completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). This study also included a section to collect sociodemographic information: sex, age, level of studies, sports modality of the organisation, position held and size of the organisation.
Data analysis
Data were analysed using SPSS and AMOS software packages version 22.0 (IBM Corp., 2013). Aiken’s V coefficient was calculated with a confidence interval of 95% to measure content validity (Penfield & Giacobbi, 2004). Descriptive statistics were used to report the participants’ general characteristics (demographic information), details of the means, and minimum and maximum item values. Univariate normality was checked, and according to Kline (2005), univariate normality is reached when the absolute values of skewness and kurtosis are below 3 and 7, respectively.
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using principal components extraction and Oblimin oblique rotation was employed to examine the model’s factor structure. EFA yielded a model composed of the five dimensions previously mentioned. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) index and Bartlett sphericity test were calculated.
After verifying the distribution of the variables, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was carried out using maximum- likelihood (ML) as an estimation method, considered a robust estimator for normally distributed data, as well as for violations of normality assumptions (Bollen, 1989). In this study, the ratio of cases to variables is > 15:1 (411:26), which is over the recommended rule of thumb value (5–10:1). To check whether the measurement model fits the data, the values of chi-square (χ²), chi-square divided by degrees of freedom (χ²/df), the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), the incremental fit index (IFI), the parsimony comparative fit index (PCFI), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) were calculated to confirm the goodness-of-fit index criteria (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
Finally, validity and reliability estimates, including factor loadings, average variance extracted (AVE), composite reliability (CR) and Cronbach’s alpha, were calculated.
Results
In terms of descriptive statistics, the values for skewness and kurtosis for all the variables were within the conventional criteria for normality suggested by Kline (2005) and did not reveal severe violations of univariate normality. In addition, the maximum possible response range was observed, detecting several cases that presented outliers, and therefore 20 cases were deleted.
Reliability and validity tests of measured variables
The KMO test reflecting the degree of synergy among the initial variables and testing the construct validity of the model had an adequate high value (0.964) (Kaiser, 1974), and Bartlett’s sphericity test was satisfactory (χ2(325) = 8544.69, p < 0.001), showing sample adequacy and suitability for factorial analysis The communalities measuring the variance of the variables were systematically above the recommended 0.50, and the factor loadings exceeded the minimum acceptable value of 0.40 (Hair et al., 2010; Worthington & Whittaker, 2006). A 6-dimension structure was obtained that explained 75.71% of the total variance, indicating that the scale’s factor structures was satisfactory (Field, 2009). The priority for the internal project dimension, initially considered univariate, was divided into two dimensions: level of involvement and level of membership.
Measuring model analysis
The initially proposed five-dimension model (Model 1) and the six-dimension model obtained from the EFA (Model 2) were analysed through CFA. The preliminary results of the two models did not show a satisfactory global fit (Table 2), requiring an adjustment based on the modification indexes and factorial weights. Thus, in both models, covariances between 5 pairs of errors measuring similar concepts were included after checking the content of the pairs of items: CRI2-AR2, CRI4-AR4, PRO3-REC3, PRO4-REC4, PRI4-PRI5. In addition, Item PRI6 (“Thanks to my organisation, I can develop the ideas that occur to me”) was eliminated only in Model 1, as it presented a factorial weight lower than 0.60 (R² ≥ 0.60; Field, 2009). Following the revision of the two models, all the fit indices were within the recommended values, and the fit obtained in Model 2 was slightly better after comparing the model fit statistics’ established cutoff points (Hooper et al., 2008).
As shown in Table 3, all the constructs’ composite reliability (CR) values were higher than the recommended threshold of 0.70, and the reliability of the measurement dimensions was also verified using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, obtaining values higher than the recommended level of 0.70 (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
Finally, convergent validity was evaluated using the criterion established by Henseler et al. (2009): the standardised factor loadings and average variance extracted (AVE). The results showed that all the items had loadings greater than 0.50, as with the AVE values in all the dimensions (AVE ≥ 0.50; Fornell & Larcker, 1981), indicating good convergent validity. In the case of discriminant validity, the square root of the AVE for each dimension was higher than the correlations between them (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) (Table 4).
The two models presented adequate values in their reliability and the AVE, so both could be valid for detecting intrapreneurial behaviours. However, this study advocates Model 1 because of its smaller number of items and because it structurally maintains the five dimensions most widely used and presented by the scientific literature on intention and intrapreneurial behaviours.
Discussion and conclusions
Intrapreneurship is a privileged tool for sports organisations aiming to adapt to the changes and requirements of a volatile and changing market (Galván-Vela et al., 2021; Hernández-Perlines et al., 2022; Lara-Bocanegra et al., 2024b). This fact, added to the main characteristics of intrapreneurs and their contribution to organisations, means that these individuals play a leading role in generating innovation, competitive advantages and good performance for organisations in both the short and medium term (Blanka, 2019; Bogatyreva et al., 2022; González-Serrano et al., 2019; Lara-Bocanegra et al., 2024a). Therefore, studies on intrapreneurship in sports have been increasing in recent years, although along disparate lines and sometimes far from the essence of intrapreneurship: the workers (González-Serrano et al., 2019, 2023; Lara-Bocanegra et al., 2021, 2022).
The main objective of this work was to design, create and validate an instrument to assess the intrapreneurial behaviours of workers in sports organisations.
The existing generalist instruments that assess intrapreneurial behaviour (see, for example, Gawke et al., 2019; Moriano et al., 2009; Stull & Singh, 2005) address different dimensions from those presented in the literature, which differ from each other. In the construction of the COINDE, we integrated the total number of dimensions of intrapreneurship reflected in the literature for which there is scientific consensus (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2001; Covin & Slevin, 1991; Garzón, 2005; González-Serrano, 2019; Krauss et al., 2005; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996; Moriano et al., 2009; Stull & Singh, 2005): creativity/innovation, risk-taking, proactivity, recognition of opportunities and priority of the internal project. After the EFA, the data suggested a six-dimensional model, with only modifications to the original internal project priority dimension, which was divided into two (involvement and belonging). Both models were tested with the CFA and required adjustments, with the six-dimension model showing a slightly better fit and a total of 26 items. Model 1, on the other hand, maintained the original five dimensions and reduced its items to 25, deleting item PRI6 (“Thanks to my organisation, I can develop the ideas that occur to me”). Both models presented adequate values of reliability and AVE, making them both valid and relevant for detecting intrapreneurial behaviours in employees of sports organisations. However, the definitive version of Model 1 (5 dimensions and 25 items) is advocated because, despite obtaining a slightly lower fit than Model 2, it faithfully reflects the five most frequently used, investigated and proposed dimensions in research on intrapreneurial intention and behaviours (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2001; Covin & Slevin, 1991; Garzón, 2005; González-Serrano, 2019; Krauss et al., 2005; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996; Moriano et al., 2009; Stull & Singh, 2005). It is also shorter than Model 2. In addition, it was considered that dividing the original Model 2 dimension, priority of the internal project, into involvement and belonging could generate confusion about their interpretation as they could be linked to precursors of intrapreneurial behaviour, such as organisational identification (Moriano et al., 2009).
The validation of the COINDE is consistent with previous theoretical developments regarding intrapreneurship in general and within the sports context in particular. The endorsed five-dimensional model reflects dimensions found in research on intrapreneurial behaviours, with the consensus of the scientific literature. This reveals the robustness of the theoretical model of intrapreneurship (Stull & Singh, 2005) and facilitates its association with the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). The theory of planned behaviour, therefore, becomes easier to use thanks to the COINDE, because we can now not only assess intrapreneurial intentions but also the actual intrapreneurial behaviour performed.
The COINDE is a valid and reliable instrument for detecting individuals with intrapreneurial behaviour in sports organisations. This represents an important advance over the existing instruments by providing measure specificity in the sports context, the work profile of the employees of these organisations, and the direct evaluation of intrapreneurial behaviour. In addition, the tool allows for directly linking the theoretical concept to its evaluation through the specific related dimensions.
At the research level, a reliable intrapreneurial behaviour assessment tool will allow for the proposition and validation of a future general theoretical model of intrapreneurship in sports, including all its latent variables, from the precursors of intentions to the subsequent generation of behaviours. A similar case has been made for entrepreneurship in sports through the two most widely used theoretical models in this field: the entrepreneurial event model (Shapero & Sokol, 1982) and the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). In addition, we emphasise the need to create training programs for employees of sports organisations linked not only to the generation of behaviours—establishing their precursors/facilitators—but also to soft skills, entrepreneurial skills and the enhancement of various competencies (including digital ones).
In terms of practical and managerial implications, the COINDE allows connecting the various dimensions exposed in the literature that orbit around the construct of intrapreneurship, deepening and connecting them under the prescriptive framework of logic in relation to the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991). In this way, the instrument will allow a direct evaluation of the intra-entrepreneurial behavior of employees of sports organizations, bringing benefits at the management level for the sports managers themselves and the organizations. This will allow organizations to be able to detect individuals with intra-entrepreneurial behaviors, which will help to continue promoting their behaviors and, at the same time, to detect individuals who do not show them and be able to empower them and promote improvement actions linked to intra-entrepreneurial behavior.
6. Practical implications, limitations and future research
At the theoretical and practical level (sport management), implementing the five-dimension model for assessing intrapreneurial behaviours in sports organisations provides a more accurate and effective identification of employees with intrapreneurial potential. This is crucial for developing specific training programs that promote soft skills, entrepreneurial competencies, and digital abilities, which are essential in the modern sports context. Additionally, the validated tool facilitates the creation of organisational interventions to enhance the intrapreneurial climate and promote a culture of innovation and proactivity. The COINDE could also facilitate more detailed and systematic monitoring of intrapreneurial development within sports organisations. Organisations could tailor their professional development strategies to foster these qualities among their employees by identifying the dimensions and factors with the most impact on intrapreneurship. This would increase internal innovation capacity and improve talent retention by providing employees with clear growth and development opportunities aligned with their intrapreneurial capabilities. Additionally, it could facilitate collaboration between different areas of the organisation, promoting a more dynamic and integrated culture.
Adapting the COINDE could also be an essential step in developing talent management strategies in the sports sector, identifying and enhancing individuals who can significantly contribute to organisational innovation and growth. Using this instrument could also help measure the impact of implemented intrapreneurial policies and adjust them as necessary, ensuring that sports organisations remain competitive and become leaders in an intrapreneurial approach to the industry.
This study has some limitations, which can be considered possibilities for improvement and growth in the scientific field. One of the most complex limitations was sample collection due to the limitations during the Covid lockdown, which led to a delay in the research. In this sense, this work could be carried out thanks to the support of various sports organisations. In turn, this study reveals potential future research. A study could focus on assessing the effectiveness of training programs specifically designed to foster intrapreneurial skills in the employees of sports organisations. This study could measure how these programs impact the employees’ innovation capacity and proactivity and to what extent they contribute to overall organisational success. It would be interesting to compare different training methodologies and their relationship with the dimensions identified by the five dimensions of the COINDE. A longitudinal study could be conducted following the intrapreneurial development of employees within sports organisations. This study could identify key factors that influence the evolution of intrapreneurship and how organisational policies and practices contribute to or inhibit this development. Finally, as the COINDE has identified specific dimensions of intrapreneurial behaviours, a future line of research could explore in greater depth the precursors of these behaviours. Investigating how factors such as organisational identification, perceived support, and talent management policies influence the intensity and frequency of intrapreneurial behaviours could provide valuable data to improve management strategies in sports organisations.
Thus, this study focuses on the importance of employees’ development and involvement for sports organisations. In addition, thanks to this tool, intrapreneurial individuals could be detected, but are organisations willing to generate the ideal conditions for their development? Perhaps the answer to this question is what will determine the immediate future of intrapreneurs in a sports organisation and/or its change in search of ideal conditions for their professional and personal development. This highlights a clear path for future work and research in the creation of benign ecosystems for the development of intrapreneurs in sports organisations, as well as the generation of training programs on intrapreneurship and their possible evaluation.
Table 1
Evolution in the design of the questionnaire items
Dimension | Instruments of origin | Items 1st version | Post validation phase items |
|---|---|---|---|
Creativity / Innovation | 1. I bring different points of view to facilitate innovation in the organization. | 1. I contribute different points of view to facilitate the improvement or creation of new products or services in the organization. | |
2. When the workload is manageable, I invest time in generating new ideas. | |||
3. I tend to generate new ideas that are useful to my organization. | 2. I tend to generate new ideas useful to my organization. | ||
4. I approach my tasks with creativity. | |||
5. I develop new products, projects and services. | 3. I develop new products/projects/services. | ||
6. Creativity is fundamental in my daily work. | |||
7. I solve problems in a creative way. | 4. I tend to solve problems in a novel way. | ||
8. I come up with new ways of doing or developing my work. | 5. I usually propose new and more efficient ways to develop my work. | ||
9. I am able to establish new relationships in the face of events or situations. | |||
10. I come up with new ways of doing tasks that have always been done in the same way. | 6. I come up with new ways of doing tasks that have always been done in the same way. | ||
Risk taking | 11. I sometimes put my job on the line to defend a new idea. | ||
12. I take calculated risks to develop new ideas. | 7. I study and take certain risks in order to develop new ideas. | ||
13. I sometimes initiate small projects in the organization even though I know they may fail. | 8. I sometimes encourage small projects in the organization even though they may fail. | ||
14. If I think an idea is good, I do not mind risking my prestige to defend it. | |||
15. I take responsibility for the tasks and ideas I develop. | 9. I take responsibility for the tasks and ideas that I develop. | ||
16. I tend to try new things even if there is a possibility that they will not work. | 10. I tend to try new things even if there is a possibility that they may not work. | ||
17. I allow myself to take risks because I know that the consequences of failure will not be serious for me. | |||
18. Having the support of my organization helps me to develop new ideas, products or services. | |||
19. I allow myself to take risky decisions when I believe that they can be beneficial to the organization. | 11. I allow myself to take risky decisions when I believe they may be beneficial to the organization. | ||
Proactivity | 20. I sometimes cross boundaries between departments to generate new ideas. | ||
21. When I have an idea that I think is good, I share it with the entire work team. | 12. When I have an idea that I think is good, I share it with the whole team. | ||
22. If there is a task or project, I get involved in it voluntarily. | 13. If there is a new task or project, I get involved in it voluntarily. | ||
23. When I identify a market niche, I look into it until I am clear about all the possible options. | |||
24. When I detect an opportunity, I take the initiative without being asked to take advantage of it. | 14. When I detect an opportunity, I take the initiative without being asked to take advantage of it. | ||
25. I look for ways to improve the activities I do. | |||
26. To confirm whether an idea is a good one, I submit it to the judgment of specialists and peers. | |||
27. Even if it is not my role, I like to be aware of changes and movements in the market. | 15. I like to be aware of market changes and movements in order to propose new ideas or improvements for the organization. | ||
28. Before making a judgment about an idea, project or service, I try to gather all relevant information about it. | |||
Opportunity recognition | 29. I look for new and innovative ways of dealing with market demands. | 16. I am confident in my ability to seek new and innovative ways to meet market demands. | |
30. Sometimes, while doing my job, I come up with new ideas about tasks or services to develop or offer. | 17. Sometimes, while doing my job, I come up with new ideas about tasks or services to develop or offer. | ||
31. I am capable of developing new products, services or projects ahead of the competition. | |||
32. I am enthusiastic when new opportunities arise. | |||
33. I am confident in my ability to spot a market niche. | |||
34. I am able to easily detect opportunities and changes in the market. | 18. I easily detect opportunities and changes in the market. | ||
35. I am interested in market developments and changes. | 19. I am interested in market developments and changes. | ||
36. I tend to find ways to improve our products or services to suit customers. | 20. I find ways to improve our products or services to attract new customer profiles. | ||
37. My knowledge of the industry helps me to identify opportunities for my organization. | |||
Priority for internal project | 38. I get involved in activities that can bring benefits to my organization. | 21. I get involved in activities that can bring benefits to my organization. | |
39. I tend to develop new ideas, products or services for my organization. | 22. I like to develop new ideas/products/services for my organization. | ||
40. I strive to achieve the goals set for the organization. | 23. I strive to achieve the goals set for the organization. | ||
41. I enjoy working for my organization. | 24. I like working for my organization. | ||
42. I prefer to develop my ideas within an established organization. | |||
43. I want this organization to succeed, and me with it. | 25. I want this organization to succeed, and I want to succeed with it. | ||
44. Without this organization, I would not be able to develop the innovative ideas I come up with. | 26. Thanks to my organization I am able to develop the ideas I come up with. | ||
45. I can give up an idea or project that excites me for the good of my organization. | |||
46. Working in this organization means being able to develop business ideas that would be unfeasible for me otherwise. |
Table 2
Goodness of fit indexes for models 1 and 2
Indexes | Model 1 | Model 2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Initial Model | Adjusted Model | Initial Model | Adjusted Model | |
χ²/df | 5.56 | 4.01 | 5.96 | 3.77 |
CFI | 0.84 | 0.91 | 0.86 | 0.92 |
TLI | 0.83 | 0.90 | 0.84 | 0.90 |
IFI | 0.84 | 0.91 | 0.86 | 0.91 |
PCFI | 0.75 | 0.78 | 0.75 | 0.78 |
RMSEA | 0.088 | 0.074 | 0.085 | 0.071 |
Table 3
Goodness of fit indexes for models 1 (M1) and 2 (M2)
Abbr. | Dimensions and items | Factor loadings (λ) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
EFA | CFA M1 | CFA M2 | ||
Creativity / Innovation (α = 0.89) | ||||
M1: CR = 0.90; AVE = 0.59; M2: CR = 0.90; AVE = 0.59 | ||||
CRI1 | I bring different points of view to facilitate the improvement or creation of new products or services in the organization. | 0.84 | 0.75 | 0.75 |
CRI2 | I tend to generate new ideas useful to my organization. | 0.87 | 0.83 | 0.83 |
CRI3 | I develop new products/projects/services. | 0.80 | 0.76 | 0.76 |
CRI4 | I tend to solve problems in a novel way. | 0.63 | 0.77 | 0.76 |
CRI5 | I usually propose new and more efficient ways to develop my work. | 0.65 | 0.78 | 0.78 |
CRI6 | I come up with new ways of doing tasks that have always been done in the same way. | 0.69 | 0.73 | 0.74 |
Risk taking (α = 0.87) | ||||
M1: CR = 0.87; AVE = 0.57; M2: CR = 0.87; AVE = 0.58 | ||||
RT1 | I study and take certain risks in order to develop new ideas. | 0.79 | 0.79 | 0.80 |
RT2 | I sometimes push small projects in the organization even though they may fail. | 0.82 | 0.77 | 0.77 |
RT3 | I take responsibility for the tasks and ideas I develop. | 0.68 | 0.74 | 0.74 |
RT4 | I tend to try new things even if there is a chance that they will not work. | 0.62 | 0.75 | 0.75 |
RT5 | I allow myself to take risky decisions when I believe they may be beneficial to the organization. | 0.82 | 0.73 | 0.74 |
Proactivity (α = 0.81) | ||||
M1: CR = 0.81; AVE = 0.52; M2: CR = 0.82; AVE = 0.53 | ||||
PRO1 | When I have an idea that I think is good, I share it with the whole work team. | 0.76 | 0.73 | 0.74 |
PRO2 | If there is a new task or project, I get involved in it voluntarily. | 0.68 | 0.75 | 0.76 |
PRO3 | When I spot an opportunity, I take the initiative without being asked to take advantage of it. | 0.86 | 0.71 | 0.71 |
PRO4 | I like to be attentive to changes and movements in the market to propose new ideas or improvements for the organization. | 0.94 | 0.70 | 0.70 |
Opportunity recognition (α = 0.89) | ||||
M1: CR = 0.89; AVE = 0.61; M2: CR = 0.89; AVE = 0.61 | ||||
REC1 | I am confident in my ability to look for new and innovative ways to address the demands of the Market. | 0.73 | 0.79 | 0.80 |
REC2 | Sometimes, while doing my job, I come up with new ideas about tasks or services to develop or offer. | 0.76 | 0.82 | 0.82 |
REC3 | I easily detect opportunities and changes in the market. | 0.80 | 0.77 | 0.77 |
REC4 | I am interested in the novelties and changes in the market. | 0.95 | 0.70 | 0.70 |
REC5 | I find ways to improve our products or services to attract new customer profiles. | 0.71 | 0.81 | 0.81 |
Priority for internal Project: Level of involvement (α = 0.77) | ||||
M1 (unidimensional): CR = 0.89; AVE = 0.61; M2: CR = 0.76; AVE = 0.62 | ||||
PIP1 | I get involved in activities that can bring benefits to my organization. | 0.74 | 0.82 | 0.78 |
PIP2 | I like to develop new ideas/products/services for my organization. | 0.80 | 0.79 | 0.79 |
Priority for internal Project: Level of membership (α = 0.86) | ||||
M2: CR = 0.87; AVE = 0.63 | ||||
PIP3 | I strive to achieve the goals set for the organization. | 0.84 | 0.81 | 0.87 |
PIP4 | I like working for my organization. | 0.89 | 0.72 | 0.81 |
PIP5 | I want this organization to succeed, and me with it. | 0.90 | 0.76 | 0.84 |
PIP6 | Thanks to my organization I can develop the ideas I come up with. | 0.67 | * | 0.64 |
Table 4
Discriminant validity (AVE values for each dimension in the diagonal and squared correlations between the respective dimension)
Model 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(1) CRI | 0.59 | |||||
(2) RT | 0.38 | 0.57 | ||||
(3) PRO | 0.27 | 0.35 | 0.52 | |||
(4) REC | 0.23 | 0.13 | 0.42 | 0.61 | ||
(5) PIP | 0.43 | 0.35 | 0.46 | 0.37 | 0.61 | |
Model 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
(1) CRI | 0.59 | |||||
(2) RT | 0.45 | 0.58 | ||||
(3) PRO | 0.32 | 0.29 | 0.53 | |||
(4) REC | 0.26 | 0.16 | 0.46 | 0.61 | ||
(5) PIP | 0.49 | 0.38 | 0.53 | 0.46 | 0.62 | |
(6) PIP_2 | 0.35 | 0.37 | 0.49 | 0.43 | 0.30 | 0.63 |
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
