Learning off the job: Examining part-time entrepreneurs as innovative employees.
3091
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318779127
Journal of Management Vol. 45 No. 8, November 2019 3091 –3113
DOI: 10.1177/0149206318779127 © The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Learning off the Job: Examining Part-time Entrepreneurs as Innovative Employees
David R. Marshall University of Dayton
Walter D. Davis Clay Dibrell
Anthony P. Ammeter University of Mississippi
In this paper, we explain and examine how engaging in part-time entrepreneurship (creating and managing side businesses while remaining employed for wages in existing organizations) uniquely positions individuals to exhibit innovative behavior in employee roles. To study this phenomenon, we integrate the literatures on entrepreneurial learning, knowledge and learning transfer, and employee innovation. We hypothesize that part-time entrepreneurship provides an opportunity for individuals to acquire knowledge and skills conducive to enacting innovative behaviors as employees. Multilevel regression analysis of a sample of 1,221 employee responses across 137 organizational units provides evidence to support our positive transferal hypothesis. Further, we find that individual differences in goal orientations and work-unit climates for innovation strengthen these relationships.
Keywords: employee innovation; part-time entrepreneurship; learning
To thrive in competitive markets, firms innovate by exploring new ideas and exploiting existing knowledge and resources (Levinthal & March, 1993; March, 1991). Recent perspec- tives assert that firm innovation is dependent, at least in part, on innovative behaviors exhib- ited by employees (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; Mom, Van den Bosch, & Volberda, 2007; Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008). However, the contexts and mechanisms through which employ- ees learn knowledge, skills, and abilities leading to innovative behavior at work are less clear (Gibson & Birkinshaw; O’Reilly & Tushman, 2013). Beyond developing new skills within
Corresponding author: David R. Marshall, University of Dayton, 300 College Park Dr., Dayton, OH 45469, USA.
E-mail: dmarshall1@udayton.edu
779127 JOMXXX10.1177/0149206318779127Journal of ManagementMarshall et al. / Learning off the Job research-article2018
3092 Journal of Management / November 2019
one’s employee role, studies suggest abilities can also be developed outside primary work roles (e.g., Eriksson & Ortega, 2006). In this study, we advance the intriguing possibility that employees engaged in entrepreneurial venturing activities outside of (in addition to) wage- employment roles are uniquely positioned to develop, refine, and transfer innovative capa- bilities from entrepreneurial to employee roles.
We introduce part-time entrepreneurship as a context and entrepreneurial learning as a mechanism through which employee innovation is enhanced. Entrepreneurship, as a process of creating ventures to pursue value-added opportunities (Bygrave & Hofer, 1991), offers participants a unique learning context. Indeed, entrepreneurial learning theory describes the development of knowledge and unique skills through entrepreneurial experiences (Wang & Chugh, 2014). In particular, individuals learn to exploit existing knowledge to incrementally improve products and services and explore new knowledge to generate new ideas (Politis, 2005). Thus, part-time entrepreneurs are primed for developing innovative capabilities.
Part-time (hybrid) entrepreneurship refers to simultaneous participation in wage-employment and entrepreneurship wherein wage-employees engage in entrepreneurial activities outside of primary work roles (Folta, Delmar, & Wennberg, 2010). While traditional management practice frowns on employees holding multiple jobs (Jamal & Crawford, 1981), creating and managing a new business while holding a primary employment position may be a particu- larly special case of multiple job holding given that an individual takes on a new entrepre- neurial role rather than simply an additional employee role (Stevenson & Sahlman, 1987). In this case, part-time entrepreneurs are founders and owners in unique learning contexts (Dyer, 1994) that may facilitate the development and transfer of innovative capabilities.
Theories of interrole learning transfer explain that positive interrole exchanges occur because individuals view knowledge and skills generated in one role as particularly valuable to performance in another (Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Noe & Schmitt, 1986). Therefore, we hypothesize that the extent to which an individual is engaged in part-time entrepreneurship is associated with greater exhibition of innovative behavior in primary employee roles (see Figure 1). However, individual motivation to transfer learning is influenced by learning and achievement preferences such as one’s goal orientation (Chadwick & Raver, 2015; Chiaburu & Marinova, 2005) and contextual factors such as work-group climate (Mathieu, Tannenbaum, & Salas, 1992; Wallace, Butts, Johnson, Stevens, & Smith, 2016). Accordingly, we examine moderating effects of individual goal orientations and work-unit climate for innovation on relationships between part-time entrepreneurship and innovative behavior in employee roles.
By introducing part-time entrepreneurship as a context and entrepreneurial learning as a mechanism through which employee innovation can be developed and transferred to employee roles, we contribute to a growing body of literature focused on understanding the ways in which employees can develop and improve innovative skill sets (Liu, Gong, Zhou, & Huang, 2017; Sung & Choi, 2014). Our integration of employee innovation research, entrepreneurial learning theory, and learning transfer research extends our understanding of drivers of employee innovation (Anderson, Potočnik, & Zhou, 2014; Wallace et al., 2016). While there may be costs associated with simultaneous employee-entrepreneurial role par- ticipation (Hobfoll, 1989), our model suggests that managers who recognize the value of part-time entrepreneurship might seek ways to facilitate the transfer of learned knowledge and skills. Therefore, we shed light on the part-time entrepreneur as an important member of organizational life who is distinctly situated to contribute to organizational innovation.
Marshall et al. / Learning off the Job 3093
Theoretical Background and Hypotheses
Moving beyond research treating employee and entrepreneurial roles as mutually exclu- sive (e.g., career-choice studies; Douglas & Shepherd, 2002), both scholars and practitioners acknowledge the existence of wage-employment and entrepreneurship career overlap. For example, Entrepreneur magazine regularly publishes articles highlighting the benefits of par- ticipating in part-time entrepreneurship (Goodman, 2005; Zwilling, 2014). Likewise, research in labor economics reports that as many as 44% of entrepreneurs mix their time between organizational and self-employment contexts (Folta et al., 2010; Parker, 1997). Accordingly, there is an emerging call for research that focuses on “everyday” forms of entrepreneurship (Welter, Baker, Audretsch, & Gartner, 2017) and the part-time entrepre- neurs who perform these roles.
Much of the scant research on part-time entrepreneurship assumes that simultaneous entrepreneurial and employee role engagement is a transitional stage toward eventual full- time entrepreneurial entry. Yet other studies indicate that full-time entrepreneurial entry may take place only after achieving high levels of self-employment to wage-employment income (Folta et al., 2010) or when an individual is willing and able to commit sufficient time to new venturing (Burmeister-Lamp, Lévesque, & Schade, 2012). Recently, scholars proposed that in many cases, part-time entrepreneurs never fully transition, opting instead to remain in a state of career hybridity (Thorgren, Sirén, Nordström, & Wincent, 2016). Regardless of whether part-time entrepreneurship is transitional or permanent, it offers participants the “potential to learn” that might not otherwise exist (Folta et al., 2010: 265). Part-time entre- preneurship as a “learning-by-doing” context (Petrova, 2012: 489) can result in increased entrepreneurial skills and abilities (Petrova, 2010; Raffiee & Feng, 2014). Thus, individuals engaged in entrepreneurship, even in part-time capacities, participate in important entrepre- neurial learning.
Figure 1 Innovative Behavioral Transfer From Entrepreneurial to Employee Roles
3094 Journal of Management / November 2019
Entrepreneurial Learning
Entrepreneurial learning theory emerged at the intersection of organizational learning and entrepreneurship research (Harrison & Leitch, 2005) and from an individual perspective, explains the process by which entrepreneurial experiences transform into entrepreneurial knowledge (Wang & Chugh, 2014). Entrepreneurial experiences encompass the participation in or observation of the creation or maintenance of a new venture (Cope, 2005; Cope & Watts, 2000). To explain how individuals learn through entrepreneurial experiences, scholars draw from research and theory related to exploratory and exploitative approaches to learning (March, 1991). Exploitative learning involves the use of existing knowledge structures to guide the acquisition of additional information that can be used to improve entrepreneurial practices. This type of learning often involves limiting variations in practice (e.g., correcting mistakes) to improve the efficiency of operations. Exploratory learning involves experimen- tation with new variations in practices that may result in desirable results. Oftentimes, the efficacy of such exploratory learning is unknown until after the results of these variations are observed. Individuals engaged in entrepreneurship develop new knowledge as they acquire information that complements existing knowledge structures (exploitative) and experiment with new practices to develop fundamentally different knowledge structures (exploratory) (Bingham & Davis, 2012).
Given that individuals participating in entrepreneurship are engaged in exploratory and exploitative learning, scholars suggest the key outcome of entrepreneurial learning is entre- preneurial knowledge and the ability to recognize and act on opportunities for innovation (Corbett, 2005; Politis, 2005). Alvarez and Busenitz (2001: 762) conceptualize entrepreneur- ial knowledge as “the ability to take conceptual, abstract information of where and how to obtain undervalued resources, explicit and tacit, and how to deploy and exploit these resources.” Thus, entrepreneurial knowledge increases an individual’s capacity to exhibit innovative behaviors.
Transfer of Innovative Learning From Entrepreneurial to Employee Roles
Transfer of learning occurs when knowledge obtained in one setting results in exhibition of related behaviors in another setting (Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Noe, 1986). Successful trans- fer of learning between roles typically transpires through an instrumental path allocation process in which valuable resources generated in one role become instrumental to enhancing performance in another (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). For example, learning transfer from training sessions to real working situations is most effective when employees learn knowl- edge and skills that are relevant to behaviors needed to accomplish role tasks (Axtell, Maitlis, & Yearta, 1997). In our model, part-time entrepreneurs gain learning experiences through entrepreneurial participation that provides increased capabilities to innovate in employee roles.
As previously reviewed, part-time entrepreneurship offers a useful and low-risk context through which an individual can increase entrepreneurial knowledge and innovative capa- bilities (Raffiee & Feng, 2014). Engaging in entrepreneurship requires the development of experience and knowledge necessary for the exploration and exploitation of opportunities (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). Therefore, learning to be more entrepreneurially minded may have important developmental benefits in terms of increasing innovative behavioral
Marshall et al. / Learning off the Job 3095
capabilities. Indeed, learning experiences in entrepreneurship are primarily transformed into useful knowledge via innovative decision making modes (Politis, 2005). Consequently, based on our review of entrepreneurial learning theory, we contend that entrepreneurial learning is a useful mechanism through which part-time entrepreneurs generate and refine abilities to exhibit innovative behaviors.
Innovation is defined as the “intentional introduction and application within a role, group, or organization of ideas, processes, products or procedures, new to the relevant unit of adop- tion, designed to significantly benefit the individual, the group, organization or wider society” (West & Farr, 1990: 9). Innovative behavior is increasingly seen as important to the enactment of employee roles (Scott & Bruce, 1994). As individuals acquire entrepreneurial knowledge through their part-time entrepreneurship experiences, they are likely to exhibit innovative behavior in their roles as employees as they see opportunities to improve performance.
Individual innovative behavior can be both exploratory and exploitative in nature. Exploratory behaviors include the introduction of new ideas, solutions, services, or products associated with one’s work role, while exploitative behaviors include reliance on existing knowledge to make incremental improvements to work procedures (Lee & Meyer-Doyle, 2017). While at the firm level it is difficult to engage in both exploratory and exploitative activities (March, 1991), research suggests individuals may be more adept in enacting both (Rogan & Mors, 2014; Taylor & Greve, 2006; Zacher, Robinson, & Rosing, 2016), which are valuable to performance of employee role tasks (Lee & Meyer-Doyle). We argue that indi- viduals simultaneously engaged in entrepreneurial activities while maintaining employee roles may be more adept than other employees at demonstrating exploratory innovative behaviors in the workplace by looking for new ways to improve organizational processes, expand or go beyond management demands, and looking for new technologies to improve how work is accomplished. Likewise, these individuals may be more capable of undertaking exploitative innovative behaviors by making existing processes more efficient and finding synergies among resources to accomplish work more effectively.
Hypothesis 1: The extent to which an individual engages in part-time entrepreneurship is positively associated with his or her innovative behavior in employee roles.
Individual Differences and Contextual Moderators
Employee behavior is often viewed as a function of ability, motivation, and opportunity (Gardner, Wright, & Moynihan, 2011). Therefore, the extent to which capabilities developed in entrepreneurial roles are transferred and exhibited in primary employee roles depends on both individual and contextual factors affecting motivation and perceived opportunities to act. Learning through experience is not an automatic process, and not all individuals are motivated to learn (Colquitt & Simmering, 1998). Individuals must have the desire to trans- form and integrate experiences into new and existing knowledge structures and identify opportunities to do so.
We contend that the relationship between part-time entrepreneurship and innovative behavior is moderated by goal orientation (motivation) and work-unit climate for innovation (opportunity). Goal orientation is often studied as one of the most fundamental individual traits guiding motivation in both learning and achievement settings (Button, Mathieu, &
3096 Journal of Management / November 2019
Zajac, 1996; Kanfer, Frese, & Johnson, 2017). Scholars are increasingly focusing on achieve- ment goal theory (Dweck & Leggett, 1988) for an understanding of the individual’s role in organizational learning processes, and individual differences in goal orientation are often seen as a primary determinant of learning and learning transfer (Chadwick & Raver, 2015). Other researchers argue that organizational climates arising from supportive policies, rules, and leaders are critical in providing the opportunity for engaging in innovative behavior (Scott & Bruce, 1994; West & Richter, 2008).
Goal orientation. Goal orientation refers to relatively stable dispositions toward developing personal capabilities and demonstrating task competence. Goal orientation arises out of one’s view of whether ability is fixed (perhaps innate) or can be improved through learning, task practice, and experimentation with new approaches to task accom- plishment (Button et al., 1996). Three dimensions of goal orientation include: learning orientation, performance-proving orientation, and performance-avoiding orientation. Individuals higher in learning orientation view ability and task mastery as something that can be improved through learning and experimentation and therefore tend to seek out challenging experiences that provide opportunities to learn (Ames & Archer, 1988) and acquire new knowledge useful for developing new capabilities (VandeWalle, Brown, Cron, & Slocum, 1999). Furthermore, increased learning orientation can lead to the elab- oration of task strategies, which is the purposeful cognitive experimentation with task schemas, leading to the development of procedural knowledge (Steele-Johnson, Beaure- gard, Hoover, & Schmidt, 2000).
Given their desires for learning and the subsequent development of knowledge, we con- tend that part-time entrepreneurs with higher learning goal orientations will experience greater learning through entrepreneurial experiences than lower learning-oriented individu- als. Hence, part-timers with higher learning orientations have greater capacities for exhibit- ing innovative behaviors in employee roles. Furthermore, we expect higher learning orientations to provide increased motivation for part-timers to transfer their knowledge and skills to the exhibition of innovative behaviors at work as higher learners tend to be less deterred by the risky and/or uncertain performance situations associated with innovative activities (Hirst, Van Knippenberg, & Zhou, 2009). Indeed, people with higher learning ori- entations often engage in more risky innovative learning (Chadwick & Raver, 2015) and are more inclined to transfer knowledge into actual behavioral settings despite high risks of failure (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002).
Hypothesis 2: Learning goal orientation moderates the association between engagement in part-time entrepreneurship and innovative behavior in employee roles such that the association will be more positive for persons with higher learning goal orientations.
Individuals with higher performance-proving orientations tend to seek out opportunities to improve performance by rehearsing existing task strategies rather than experimenting with new approaches (Steele-Johnson et al., 2000) and are inclined to engage in learning experi- ences that enable them to refine existing capabilities (Chadwick & Raver, 2015). Therefore, part-timers with higher proving orientations likely develop greater innovative capabilities than those with lower proving orientations and are uniquely equipped to draw on their newly developed entrepreneurial knowledge and skills in enacting innovative behaviors in employee roles. Further, persons with higher performance-proving orientations are more motivated to
Marshall et al. / Learning off the Job 3097
demonstrate their competence and gain favorable judgements from others than lower prov- ing-oriented people (VandeWalle, Cron, & Slocum, 2001). Thus, we expect that part-timers with higher proving orientations experience increased motivation to transfer entrepreneurial learning to the enhancement of their performance in employee roles through greater innova- tive behaviors, thereby garnering favor with organizational leaders and coworkers.
Hypothesis 3: Performance-proving goal orientation moderates the association between engage- ment in part-time entrepreneurship and innovative behavior in employee roles such that the association will be more positive for persons with higher performance-proving goal orientations.
An individual with higher performance-avoiding goal orientation views ability as rela- tively fixed, such that experimentation with new approaches to task accomplishment is unnecessary and perhaps even risky (Hirst et al., 2009). As such, higher avoidance goal- oriented individuals tend to evade opportunities to engage in learning (Chadwick & Raver, 2015). Accordingly, we posit that higher avoiding goal orientations make it harder for part- time entrepreneurs to develop innovative behavioral skill sets such as those acquired by high learners and provers. We further contend that part-time entrepreneurs with higher avoiding goal orientations than others lack the potential to make unique innovative contributions in employee roles. Additionally, performance-avoiding goal orientation is characterized by a strong desire to avoid negative performance perceptions (VandeWalle, 1997). Because the outcomes of innovative behaviors are often uncertain and can result in failure, part-time entrepreneurs who are also higher in avoidance orientation may be less motivated to transfer entrepreneurial learning to the exhibition of innovative behavior in employment roles. These individuals may fail to recognize the important information embedded in learning experi- ences and are less likely to utilize this information in new situations.
Hypothesis 4: Performance-avoiding goal orientation moderates the association between engage- ment in part-time entrepreneurship and innovative behavior in employee roles such that the association will be more positive for persons with lower performance-avoiding goal orientations.
Work-unit climate for innovation. Climate refers to the shared perceptions of the types of behaviors that are encouraged in a work-unit through meanings attributed to policies, practices, and norms (Schneider, 1990). Climate is typically studied as an attribute of a group or an organization rather than at the individual level (Schneider, Ehrhart, & Macey, 2013). When group policies and norms reward and encourage innovative behavior, group members are more likely to share perceptions of opportunities to engage in innovative behavior (Scott & Bruce, 1994; West & Richter, 2008). Specifically, a climate for innovation consists of a shared vision of innovative outcomes, perceived safety to participate in the innovative process, high collective standards of task performance, and shared perceptions of support for innovation in the form of needed resources (Anderson & West, 1998; Somech & Drach- Zahavy, 2013).
When employees in a work-unit share similar perceptions that innovative behavior is highly encouraged, rewarded, and supported, it is more likely that part-time entrepreneurs will be motivated to transfer their entrepreneurial knowledge and skills toward innovation in
3098 Journal of Management / November 2019
employee roles. Perhaps most importantly, when a work-unit provides the psychological safety to promote and champion innovative ideas, part-timers will feel free of the risk and uncertainty that often accompany innovation (Choi, 2007). Additionally, innovative group climates can help part-time entrepreneurs recognize how their entrepreneurial skills might be applicable in their work tasks by conveying clear messages about what innovative behaviors look like within the unit (Sung & Choi, 2014). However, a group climate lacking in support of innovation may suggest to part-timers that learned entrepreneurial knowledge does not pertain to employee roles or is not valued, and therefore, part-time entrepreneurs may be less inclined to transfer entrepreneurial learning to innovative behavior at work.
Hypothesis 5: Work-unit climate for innovation moderates the association between engagement in part-time entrepreneurship and innovative behavior in employee roles such that the association will be more positive under conditions of higher innovative climate.
Methodology
Design and Sample
We tested our hypotheses on a sample of employees of a large logistics and security com- pany working in eight locations throughout the United States. This firm is useful for testing hypotheses regarding part-time entrepreneurship and employee innovative behavior for sev- eral reasons. First, this company emphasizes team-based approaches to organizing and dis- tributing workload, thereby facilitating the testing of group-climate effects. Specifically, the sample consists of 137 unique teams distinguished by office codes assigned by the personnel department. Each office, or work-unit, is composed of at least two employees of varying functional areas (43 occupational codes; e.g., finance, HR, maintenance, R&D, supply chain, business development, etc.). Second, to avoid biased results, the sample firm provides employee participants of varying degrees of innovative capabilities (as opposed to employ- ees of high-tech innovation firms of Silicon Valley) to accurately capture the effects of part- time entrepreneurial engagement on innovative behavior within primary employing roles. As part of its vision, the firm aims to provide innovative and cost-effective capabilities to cus- tomers. Thus, while the company emphasizes the importance of innovation, its reputation is not one of high-tech or necessarily high innovation and provides a valid context in which to test our hypotheses.
The survey instrument was distributed via the organization’s internal survey system to roughly 5,500 workers. Useable responses totaled 1,221, a response rate of 22.2%. The sam- ple has the following characteristics: 71% male, average age of 37 years, average tenure of 11 years, 53% holding a college or advanced degree, and 69% considered white-collar or non–maintenance personnel.
Construct Measurement and Validity
Engagement in part-time entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship is a broad concept with many varied conceptualizations and definitions, making its measurement difficult (Gart- ner, 1990). Recently, scholars have warned against narrowly defining entrepreneurial activity in scholarly research to avoid restricting empirical evaluation (Welter et al., 2017).
Marshall et al. / Learning off the Job 3099
Consistent with this logic but also to distinguish between part-time entrepreneurship, other forms of secondary wage-employment work, and other activities that fail to generate eco- nomic value (e.g., clubs, societies, and/or other hobby-based groups), we adopt a view of entrepreneurship shared by many scholars that value-creating opportunities are realized through the creation, implementation, and management of new business entities (Alvarez & Busenitz, 2001). Thus, part-time entrepreneurship reflects engagement in the creation and/or management of an entrepreneurial venture while maintaining a role as an employee in an existing firm.
To avoid restricting the range of possible entrepreneurial ventures undertaken in our sample, we allowed respondents to determine the extent to which they were actually involved in entre- preneurial venture creation and management. That is to say, we did not provide a formal defini- tion of entrepreneurship to respondents. Rather, through three items, individuals identified the extent to which they were currently engaged in entrepreneurial activities (related to starting and/or managing their own entrepreneurial ventures) outside of primary employment roles. A 7-point Likert-type scale was used for scoring each item. These activities included “founding an entrepreneurial business,” “running a part-time business,” and “creating a for-profit or non- profit entrepreneurial venture.” We scattered distractor items related to one’s involvement in other various activities outside of work but unrelated to entrepreneurial pursuits throughout the scale to aide in the distinction of part-time entrepreneurship and other types of activities such as “involvement in civic organizations or clubs.” To better distinguish entrepreneurial activities from other profit-generating activities not typically considered as entrepreneurial, such as con- sulting or driving for Uber, we included an “involvement in self-employment” activities item (full scales reported in the Appendix). Distractor/distinguisher items were not used in the final analytical model. Rather, these items helped to discriminate between entrepreneurship and non- entrepreneurship activities. Alpha reliability for the measure is 0.97.
Innovative behavior (in employee roles). We relied primarily on Jansen, Van Den Bosch, and Volberda’s (2006) questionnaire to generate a list of potential items to adapt to the individ- ual level given that few studies have dealt explicitly with exploratory and exploitative behavior at the individual level. The Jansen et al. survey was designed to assess unit-level innovative behaviors based on managerial responses. Where appropriate for our research sample and set- ting, we maintained similar verbiage of the items while replacing each unit-level referent such as we and our with I and replaced statements of unit-level services with more appropriate indi- vidual-level tasks or other established items of innovative behavior (Scott & Bruce, 1994). We reviewed and revised items to ensure the measures accounted for multiple stages of innovative behavior (i.e., idea generation, coalition building, and implementation; Scott & Bruce, 1994). To enhance construct validity, we then pretested items through interviews with six senior-level managers and four members of the personnel department (responsible for maintaining posi- tion descriptions of each employee) of our sampled firm. Each interviewee was asked to indi- cate item phrasing that was relevant to the types of work processes performed by the typical employee of the firm and suggest changes to improve overall understandability of each item for their employees.
We followed the approach of other scholars in relying on self-reported assessments of innovative behavior (Dorenbosch, Van Engen, & Verhagen, 2005; Jansen et al., 2006) because peer judgements may not adequately capture the full range of innovative behaviors
3100 Journal of Management / November 2019
of an employee given that much of the innovation process takes place in one’s mind (Janssen, 2000). Likewise, peers and/or supervisors may not recognize incremental innovations employees make in individual work tasks and processes as these changes may be “subtle” in nature (Janssen 2000: 292). Meta-analyses empirically demonstrate that “others-rated” posi- tive workplace behaviors typically offer negligible incremental explanation over self-reported measures (Carpenter, Berry, & Houston, 2014). The final scale for innovative behavior con- tained 12 items. We anchored each item to the employee role by asking respondents to rate on a 7-point Likert-type scale the degree to which they disagreed/agreed with statements such as “In my primary, full-time job: I often expand the services I offer customers/constitu- ents through new offerings” (full scale included in the Appendix).
To assess the validity and reliability of adapted scale items, 127 contracted employees working at a satellite office of the sample firm completed a survey that included the 12 inno- vative behavior items, a 9-item self-reported bricolage behavior measure (Hmieleski & Corbett, 2006), and a shortened, 7-item self-reported organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) measure (adapted from Moorman & Blakely, 1995). Exploratory factor analyses of all items demonstrate convergence among innovative behavior measures while discriminating them from similar behavioral (bricolage) and other discretionary performance (OCB) con- structs. A rotated component matrix revealed three factors with innovative behavior items ranging from 0.73 to 0.89. The highest cross-loading with innovative behavior is 0.26, a bricolage item. Alpha reliability for innovative behavior is 0.95.
Goal orientation. The 13-item measure established by Brett and VandeWalle (1999) assessed the three dimensions of individual goal orientation. Alpha reliabilities for each ori- entation variable are 0.98, 0.94, and 0.90 for learning (5 items), proving (4 items), and avoid- ing (4 items), respectively.
Work-unit innovative climate. A short-form, adapted instrument assessed climate for unit-level innovation based on previously established measures (Anderson & West, 1998; Scott & Bruce, 1994). Unidimensional, short-form scales consistently provide robust indica- tions of innovative climates in other studies (e.g., Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2013; Sung & Choi, 2014). Five items asked respondents the degree to which they agreed/disagreed with statements referring to unit-level innovativeness such as “Employees in my work-unit regu- larly encourage others to explore new ideas and try new ways of doing things” (full scale provided in the Appendix).
Several assessments of agreement justify unit-level aggregation. The mean rwg(j) (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984) for work-unit innovative climate is an acceptable 0.86 (Bliese, 2000). Intraclass correlations (ICC) for climate as suggested by Bliese (2000) are 0.19 for ICC(1) and 0.69 for ICC(2), both consistent with acceptable ranges for multilevel research (Bliese, 2000). Additionally, an ANOVA test indicated significant between-group variance in climate (F = 3.03).
Controls. Our analyses account for other variables that might create disturbances in the hypothesized relationships. Chief among these variables are proactive and creative personali- ties that potentially lead to both entrepreneurial engagement and innovative behaviors. In many studies, individuals possessing a proactive personality demonstrate greater innovative behavior than others (Chen, Farh, Campbell-Bush, Wu, & Wu, 2013; Kim, Hon, & Crant, 2009; Seibert,
Marshall et al. / Learning off the Job 3101
Crant, & Kraimer, 1999). Likewise, proactive personality is a strong predictor of entrepreneurial intent, behavior, and success (Becherer & Maurer, 1999; Brandstätter, 2011; Crant, 1996; Rauch & Frese, 2007). We control for proactive personality with an established five-item scale (Kickul & Gundry, 2002). In our study, this measure revealed good reliability with an alpha of 0.91. Because of the close ties between creativity, innovative behavior, and entrepreneurial behavior (Bharadwaj & Menon, 2000; Shane & Nicolaou, 2015), we control for creative personality using Gough’s (1979) 30-adjective checklist scale. Alpha reliability for this measure is 0.72.
To further isolate learning effects, we control for overall, individual job performance as rated by each respondent’s immediate supervisor. The data for this measure originated with the organization and are part of the most recent employee performance appraisal. We used company-assigned employee identification numbers to match respondents with their respec- tive supervisor-rated performance. Each respondent’s immediate supervisor rated employees (from 1 = very poor to 9 = outstanding) in nine areas of performance such as work effort, adaptability, and work relationships. Alpha reliability for this measure is 0.93. We also con- trol for the number of years an individual has been engaged in entrepreneurship (P/T ENT tenure) as this might influence learning effects such that longer tenured entrepreneurs accu- mulate more innovative skills. Given the potential for outside entrepreneurial endeavors interfering with successfully carrying out employee role tasks, we control for an indicator of commitment to one’s venture pursuits by asking respondents to indicate intentions for entre- preneurship as a full-time occupation. Intentions for full-time entrepreneurship (F/T ENT intentions) are assessed by three items (scored on a 1-7 Likert-type scale from strongly dis- agree to strongly agree; “intend to run/own a business as your primary job; intend to run a business full-time; will eventually be a full-time entrepreneur”). Alpha reliability is 0.95.
We conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess the validity of the multilevel measurement model. Comparing several theoretically viable models showed the hypothesized model with six focal multi-item constructs as the best fit for our data (χ2 = 5,249.34, df = 481, p < .01; Comparative Fit Index [CFI] = .91, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .09). Resulting fit indices are comparable to other studies modeling innovative behavior and climate constructs (e.g., Eisenbeiss, van Knippenberg, & Boerner, 2008; Wallace et al., 2016). Constructs showed sufficient discriminant validity as each average variance extracted (AVE) surpassed corresponding squared bivariate correlations (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Convergent validity of the constructs is supported by significant factor loadings (above 0.77) for all items and the magnitude of all AVEs greater than 0.72 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988).
Analytical Technique and Results
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
Correlations among part-time entrepreneurship, goal orientations, and innovative behav- ior are moderately high (see Table 1). However, variance inflation factors are all below 1.76, suggesting multicollinearity is likely not an issue (Neter, Wasserman, & Kutner, 1985).
Multilevel Model Hypothesis Testing
We used multilevel (hierarchical) modeling (Hofmann, Griffin, & Gavin, 2000) to test the effects of individual engagement in part-time entrepreneurship on individual
3102 Journal of Management / November 2019
behaviors, the individual-level interactions on these relationships, and the cross-level interaction of work-unit innovative climate with part-time entrepreneurship on innovative behaviors. Individual-level predictor variables were group-mean centered prior to analysis as group-mean centering is recommended in studies where the work-unit (rather than the organization) represents the highest level of analysis to produce unbiased estimates of within-group slope (Hofmann & Gavin, 1998). Innovative climate was grand-mean cen- tered because it represents a unit-level construct and is supported by aggregation results (Wallace et al., 2016).
Individual-level main effects. Hypothesis 1 predicts the extent of engagement in part-time entrepreneurial roles is positively linked to exhibition of innovative behaviors in employee roles. We first estimate a Level 1 model with innovative behavior regressed on only control variables and allow a random intercept to vary by work-unit corresponding to the nesting of employees within these units (Table 2, Model 1). To test Hypothesis 1, we added part-time entrepreneurship to the previous model. Results of this model (Table 2, Model 2) support Hypothesis 1 (γ = 0.38, t = 13.30, p = .001).
Individual-level interaction effects. Hypothesis 2, the moderating influence of learning goal orientation, is supported (γ = 0.04, t = 2.28, p = .022), as seen in Table 2, Model 4. Plots of the interaction’s simple slopes are provided in Figure 2 and indicate that part- timers who are also higher in learning orientation exhibit greater innovative behavior (γ = 0.31, p < .01) than those lower in learning orientation (γ = 0.18, p < .01). Hypothesis 3, the moderating influence of proving goal orientation, is not supported (γ = 0.02, t =
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. P/T entrepreneurship
2.83 2.08 (0.97)
2. Learning GO 5.18 1.67 0.31** (0.98) 3. Proving GO 4.43 1.68 0.35** 0.24** (0.94) 4. Avoiding GO 2.88 1.43 0.06 0.00 0.07* (0.90) 5. Innovative
climate 4.48 1.42 0.04 0.11** 0.04 0.03 (0.95)
6. Innovative behavior
4.05 1.73 0.56** 0.43** 0.47** −0.00 0.16** (0.95)
7. Proactive personality
5.31 1.17 0.05 0.15** 0.31** −0.10** 0.14** 0.23**
8. Creative personality
7.27 3.72 0.09** 0.05 0.08** −0.03 0.03 0.12** 0.02
9. Job performance 8.24 0.70 0.14** 0.05 0.07* −0.00 0.02 0.12** 0.03 −0.00 10. P/T ENT tenure 0.84 2.11 0.57** 0.20** 0.23* −0.00 0.03 0.37** 0.05 0.07** 0.11** 11. F/T ENT
intentions 2.68 1.78 0.56** 0.21** 0.21** 0.000 −0.00 0.38** 0.03 0.07* 0.09** 0.38**
Note: N = 1,221. Alpha reliabilities for focal study variables included in the matrix diagonal in parentheses. P/T = part-time; GO = goal orientation; ENT = entrepreneurship; F/T = full-time. Two-tailed tests for significance. *p < .05. **p < .01.
Marshall et al. / Learning off the Job 3103
1.79, p = .073). In Hypothesis 4, we argued that at lower levels of avoiding goal orienta- tion, the association between part-time entrepreneurship and innovative behavior would be more positive than at higher levels. As seen in Table 2, Model 4, the coefficient for the interaction effect is statistically significant (γ = −0.03, t = −2.39, p = .017; Table 2, Model 4), and the simple slopes plot in Figure 3 adds additional support at lower (γ = 0.30, p < .01) and higher (γ = 0.21, p < .01) levels.
Table 2
Results of Moderated Multilevel Regression Modeling of Innovative Behavior
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Intercept 3.84 (0.06)
3.95 (0.06)
3.95 (0.05)
3.91 (0.06)
Proactive personality 0.32** (0.04)
0.30** (0.04)
0.14** (0.04)
0.13** (0.04)
Creative personality 0.02 (0.01)
0.02 (0.01)
0.01 (0.01)
0.01 (0.01)
Job performance 0.16* (0.06)
0.09 (0.06)
0.08 (0.05)
0.09 (0.05)
P/T ENT tenure 0.19** (0.02)
0.06* (0.03)
0.07* (0.02)
0.05* (0.02)
F/T ENT intentions 0.26** (0.03)
0.07* (0.03)
0.07* (0.03)
0.06** (0.03)
P/T entrepreneurship 0.38** (0.03)
0.26** (0.03)
0.25** (0.03)
Learning GO 0.24** (0.02)
0.26** (0.03)
Proving GO 0.25** (0.03)
0.24** (0.03)
Avoiding GO −0.04 (0.03)
−0.04 (0.03)
Work-unit innovative climate 0.36** (0.07)
0.36** (0.07)
P/T Entrepreneurship × Learning GO 0.04* (0.02)
P/T Entrepreneurship × Proving GO 0.02 (0.01)
P/T Entrepreneurship × Avoiding GO −0.03* (0.01)
P/T Entrepreneurship × Innovative Climate
0.06* (0.03)
aTotal R2 0.24** 0.32** 0.43** 0.44** R2 Change — 0.08** 0.11** 0.01**
Note: Table presents unstandardized coefficients with standard errors shown in parentheses. N = 1,221 for individual- level variables, and N = 137 for climate unit-level variable. Two-tailed tests. See Results section for t values and p values for hypotheses tests. P/T = part-time; F/T = full-time; ENT = entrepreneurship; GO = goal orientation. *p < .05. **p < .01. aThese values are considered pseudo-R2 values and reflect the proportional reduction in Level 1 and Level 2 errors in each model beyond the null model (model with no predictor variables; Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992).
3104 Journal of Management / November 2019
Work-unit level (cross-level) interaction effect. In the final model (Table 2, Model 4), the aggregated perceptions of each work-unit innovative climate and cross-level interaction term are entered into the random effects equation. Hypothesis 5 is supported (γ = 0.06, t = 2.19, p = .028), and the simple slopes of the interaction effects plotted in Figure 4 provide further support showing significant slope differences at high (γ = 0.33, p < .01) but not low (γ = 0.16, p > .05) levels.
Figure 2 Part-Time Entrepreneurship × Learning Goal Orientation Interaction
Figure 3 Part-Time Entrepreneurship × Avoiding Goal Orientation Interaction
Marshall et al. / Learning off the Job 3105
Post Hoc Analyses
The single time period nature of the data sample may raise questions regarding the inter- nal validity of our inferences. Therefore, we employ several analytical techniques to ease concerns of common methods bias and support the logic of learning effects. We analyzed a measurement model that included the six hypothesized latent variables and an additional orthogonal latent common factor that failed to converge, suggesting poor fit. We also tested a single-factor model resulting in significantly poorer fit than the hypothesized model (χ2 = 33,064.56, df = 496, p < .01; CFI = .39, RMSEA = .23).
Given the self-reported nature of the dependent variable in our models, we regressed supervisor-rated performance items, which empirically and conceptually correlate with inno- vative behavior (significant correlations above 0.10), on part-time entrepreneurship. Five items evaluating an employee’s effort in initiating tasks, adapting to new situations, and identifying and developing solutions to problems formed the dependent variable in this regression. After including control variables and all other independent variables, part-time entrepreneurship shows a significant positive relationship with our secondary measure (b = 0.04, p < .01). Furthermore, we found evidence in support of a mediation model in which part-time entrepreneurship relates to supervisor-rated performance through innovative behavior (indirect effect b = 0.02, p < .05). Along with significant interaction terms in the primary analyses, these findings suggest that results are unlikely to be influenced by common methods bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012).
To further assess the existence of learning effects for part-time entrepreneurs, we modeled the relationship between the length of time an individual has been a part-time entrepreneur and their innovative behavior. In a sample of only those persons indicating a history of part- time entrepreneurial engagement (n = 359), years as a part-time entrepreneur is positively related to innovative behavior (b = 0.08, p < .01), suggesting that the longer an individual
Figure 4 Part-Time Entrepreneurship × Unit Climate for Innovation Interaction
3106 Journal of Management / November 2019
remains in entrepreneurship, the greater his or her innovative behavior as an employee (R2 increases by 0.02 for model including years as part-time entrepreneur beyond control vari- ables). Additionally, one-way analysis of variance results confirm that individuals with greater than two years of entrepreneurial experience show higher average innovative behav- ior than those with less than two years of experience and those employees reporting no expe- rience, F(2, 1218) = 178.68, p < .001. These findings align with the tenets of the entrepreneurial learning theory. In concert with role theory (Sieber, 1974) and conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989), these results also suggest that because the initial stages of venture creation are often the most challenging and time-consuming, part-timers with longer tenures either gain more learning over time or are more willing and able to transfer learned skills from entrepreneurship to employment.
In addition to accounting for important variables (e.g., proactive and creative personali- ties) in modeling the relationship between part-time entrepreneurs and innovative employee behaviors, we tested for omitted variable bias and endogeneity in our model using a two- stage least squares approach (Antonakis, Bendahan, Jacquart, & Lalive, 2014). We used respondent age as the instrumental variable in the analysis as it is correlated with part-time entrepreneurship and uncorrelated with innovative behavior. The two-stage model yields similar results to our multilevel model. A weak instruments test was rejected, indicating age is a reliable instrument, and a Wu-Hausman test revealed that endogeneity was likely not a concern in this study, F(1, 1214) = 0.99, p = .319).
Discussion
Results of our study provide support for our theoretical integration of entrepreneurial learning theory, learning transfer, and innovative behavior research in suggesting that part- time entrepreneurs have unique opportunities to direct their entrepreneurial knowledge and skill sets to their roles in primary employing organizations. In our sample, we found evidence that employees who run side businesses exhibited greater innovative behaviors in their employee roles than those who did not. Further, we examined individual and work-unit–level conditions that contribute to greater learning transfer between roles. We found evidence that higher learning goal orientations and work-unit climates for innovation and lower avoidance goal orientations strengthened part-time entrepreneurship to employee role innovation relationships.
Theoretical Implications and Future Research
For scholars investigating motivations, conditions, and contexts that drive employee inno- vation (Rogan & Mors, 2014; Wallace et al., 2016), our study indicates there are important learning contexts outside the purview of the firm in which employees can hone the knowl- edge, skills, and abilities critical for exhibiting innovative behavior. This is an important finding given that most research focused on uncovering important innovative learning con- texts takes place within firm training programs and/or formal educational programs (Sung & Choi, 2014). While entrepreneurial learning is a familiar concept within organizational stud- ies (Wang & Chugh, 2014), few have considered its usefulness in identifying different means through which employees within an organization might improve performance. Our extension of entrepreneurial learning theory to explain why employees engaged in entrepreneurial
Marshall et al. / Learning off the Job 3107
activities outside of formal working conditions are more inclined to contribute to the innova- tive pursuits of the firm highlights the importance of identifying new contexts and ways in which employee innovation can be enhanced.
Further, we contribute to employee innovation research by positioning the part-time entre- preneur as a key contributor in wage-employment organizations. That is to say, organiza- tional research has primarily focused on the negative performance implications of employee engagement in other employment activities outside of work (Jamal & Crawford, 1981; O’Driscoll, Ilgen, & Hildreth, 1992). Our study shows that not only are part-time entrepre- neurs different than other second-job holders based on their motivations and learning experi- ences, but they are positioned to positively impact organizational processes. In doing so, our research complements recent calls for theory to pay greater attention to the intertwined nature of entrepreneurship and wage-employment (Burton, Sørensen, & Dobrev, 2016). Therefore, future research on part-time entrepreneurs might move beyond studies of personal character- istics and circumstances (Folta et al., 2010; Raffiee & Feng, 2014; Thorgren et al., 2016; Thorgren, Nordström, & Wincent, 2014) and draw on our interrole model to answer a greater breadth of research questions, such as how elements in one’s employee role affect decisions to enter entrepreneurship full-time, abandon entrepreneurship in favor of wage-employment, or remain in hybridity.
Our research also exposes a previously unexplored side of the overlap between organiza- tions and entrepreneurship. Whereas research in this area predominantly focuses on how elements of organizational life influence individual venturing (Sørensen & Fassiotto, 2011), we find outside entrepreneurship can enrich organizations. Future research should explore additional aspects of the positive entrepreneurship to employment organization relationship by determining other ways in which part-time entrepreneurs contribute to their employing organizations. For example, a part-time entrepreneur may exhibit greater management and leadership ability and be more willing to work outside of their routine tasks to accomplish organizational goals, thereby exhibiting greater organizational citizenship. Perhaps most intriguing, part-time entrepreneurs may develop bridging social network ties through their outside entrepreneurial activities. Network theory suggests the primary organization may benefit greatly from these bridging ties (Granovetter, 1983) given the likelihood that ties are unique to the entrepreneur.
While our research points to a positive influence of entrepreneurial roles, the potential for negative interactions should also be examined (Sieber, 1974). For example, entrepreneurs in the early stages of venturing may exhaust human capital resources and feel otherwise unable to perform employee roles. Along these lines, future studies should also consider a greater breadth of moderating conditions that help explain occurrences of negative versus positive interactions between the two roles. For example, centrality and salience of role identities influence role interactions (Carr, Boyar, & Gregory, 2008), and researchers should examine how both employee and entrepreneurial role identities either enhance or inhibit the transfer of entrepreneurial learning to the employee context.
Managerial Implications
This study has important implications for organizational leaders responsible for planning and implementing programs that drive employee innovation. These leaders might consider supporting employee desires to act entrepreneurially outside the boundaries of the firm as a
3108 Journal of Management / November 2019
means of increasing abilities to think and act innovatively. While this concept may at first appear counterintuitive, it aligns with other forms of employee development programs such as the funding of employee educational opportunities despite the risk that employees may become overqualified for their current jobs and leave the company for other positions (Feuer, Glick, & Desai, 1987). Encouraging employees to engage in entrepreneurial activities out- side of the organization may result in some employees eventually transitioning to full-time entrepreneurship, but perhaps many others will remain engaged with the organization and transfer entrepreneurial knowledge to work-related tasks and procedures.
Limitations
The nature of the data (cross sectional) precludes our ability to draw conclusions about causal relationships. It was our intention to examine the extent to which state-like engage- ment in entrepreneurship affects current behavior, partly because entrepreneurial learning theory has yet to deal with issues of time (i.e., when something is actually learned and sub- sequently put into practice or otherwise forgotten). A cross-sectional design allowed for flex- ibility in examining current effects of entrepreneurial learning on innovation. Future research should consider a longitudinal approach to determine how innovative abilities are developed over time through entrepreneurship and any corresponding changes to employee behavior at work. Similarly, an experimental research design could be employed to more effectively isolate the learning effects associated with part-time entrepreneurship through different experimental treatments.
Also, our measure of engagement in part-time entrepreneurship does not capture the full breadth and range of activities associated with the entrepreneurial process. For example, this measure does not ask the extent to which one is engaged in scanning the market for opportu- nities to create a venture. Other entrepreneurial activities may be more transferrable to the primary workplace, and this may in turn also depend on the nature of the work performed at the primary workplace. In concert with the previous point, similarities in the nature of work performed in entrepreneurial activities and the primary organization may lead to greater value of knowledge and skills transfer but may lead to lower creative gains as the entrepre- neurial knowledge is less likely to contain novel ideas due to differences in foundational knowledge that would be expected if the work was quite different between the two venues. Moreover, our measure does not adequately capture the temporal component of part-time entrepreneurship, such as the amount of time spent working in the side venture. Future inclu- sion of a temporal component for this measure would provide additional avenues for study, including identification of an inflection point when part-time entrepreneurship results in role conflict with the existing job rather than being a complement.
Conclusion
Organizational leaders are often concerned with how knowledge, skills, and abilities lead- ing to innovative behavior are learned (Sung & Choi, 2014). Our research builds on this premise and identifies a unique context and mechanism through which some employees are developing and refining innovative skills sets: learning through entrepreneurial activities outside of the workplace. The results of the present study provide evidence of a relationship
Marshall et al. / Learning off the Job 3109
between engaging in part-time entrepreneurship and innovative behaviors in the workplace. We hope our findings continue to push scholars to consider the important interaction between entrepreneurship and employment organizations, especially in terms of part-time entrepre- neurs, and that organizational leaders recognize the potential benefits that may accrue by encouraging employees to act entrepreneurially both inside and outside of the firm.
Appendix
Items for New and/or Adapted Scales
Exploratory and Exploitative Innovative Behavior
In my primary, full-time job:
I often try to expand the services I offer customers/constituents through new offerings. I regularly experiment with new ways of doing my work in ways that others do not. I often accept and fulfill demands from managers and constituents that go beyond my normal
services. I generate new, creative ideas for accomplishing work tasks. I promote and champion new ideas to others. I seek out new technologies, processes, and techniques to improve how work is accomplished. I often make small adaptations to my processes in order to be more efficient and effective. I try to create synergies between my work and that of my coworkers. I often adapt my processes to better suit the needs of the constituents/customers. I frequently analyze the processes associated with my work tasks to find ways of making incremen-
tal improvements. I believe that small changes in the way things are done can have major impacts. I often look at what others are doing well and adopt and modify their approaches to my own work.
Extent of Engagement in Part-Time Entrepreneurship
Please indicate the extent to which you engage in the following activities outside of work:
Involvement in charitable organizations (Distractor) Involvement in founding an entrepreneurial business Involvement in local government—e.g., Chamber of Commerce, Advisory Board (Distractor) Involvement in activities at home with family or friends (Distractor) Involvement in starting and running a part-time business Involvement in civic organizations or clubs (Distractor) Involvement in sports or recreational events (Distractor) Involvement in creating a for-profit or not-for-profit venture Involvement in activities related to my primary job (Distractor) Involvement in self-employment (Distractor/differentiator)
Work-Unit Climate for Innovation
My work-unit emphasizes innovation in problem solving. The employees that I work with often use innovative solutions in solving problems.
3110 Journal of Management / November 2019
Employees in my work-unit are innovative. Employees in my work-unit regularly encourage others to explore new ideas and try new ways of
doing things. My work-unit emphasizes sharing new ideas and solutions with others.
References Alvarez, S. A., & Busenitz, L. W. 2001. The entrepreneurship of resource-based theory. Journal of Management,
27: 755-775. Ames, C., & Archer, J. 1988. Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and motivation
processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80: 260-267. Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. 2014. Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science
review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40: 1297-1333. Anderson, N. R., & West, M. A. 1998. Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development and validation
of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19: 235-258. Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. 2014. Causality and endogeneity: Problems and solutions.
The Oxford Handbook of Leadership and Organizations, 1: 93-117. Axtell, C. M., Maitlis, S., & Yearta, S. K. 1997. Predicting immediate and longer-term transfer of training. Personnel
Review, 26: 201-213. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. 1988. On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 16: 74-94. Baldwin, T. T., & Ford, J. K. 1988. Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. Personnel
Psychology, 41: 63-105. Becherer, R. C., & Maurer, J. G. 1999. The proactive personality disposition and entrepreneurial behavior among
small company presidents. Journal of Small Business Management, 37: 28-36. Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, W. J. 2002. Goal orientation and ability: Interactive effects on self-efficacy, performance,
and knowledge. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 497-505. Bharadwaj, S., & Menon, A. 2000. Making innovation happen in organizations: Individual creativity mechanisms,
organizational creativity mechanisms or both? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 17: 424-434. Bingham, C. B., & Davis, J. P. 2012. Learning sequences: Their existence, effect, and evolution. Academy of
Management Journal, 55: 611-641. Bliese, P. D. 2000. Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: implications for data aggregation
and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multi-level theory, research and methods in organiza- tions: Foundations, extensions, and new directions: 349-381. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brandstätter, H. 2011. Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: A look at five meta-analyses. Personality and Individual Differences, 51: 222-230.
Brett, J. F., & VandeWalle, D. 1999. Goal orientation and goal content as predictors of performance in a training program. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 863-873.
Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. 1992. Hierarchical linear models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Burmeister-Lamp, K., Lévesque, M., & Schade, C. 2012. Are entrepreneurs influenced by risk attitude, regulatory
focus or both? An experiment on entrepreneurs’ time allocation. Journal of Business Venturing, 27: 456-476. Burton, M. D., Sørensen, J. B., & Dobrev, S. D. 2016. A careers perspective on entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 40: 237-247. Button, S. B., Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. 1996. Goal orientation in organizational research: A conceptual and
empirical foundation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67: 26-48. Bygrave, W. D., & Hofer, C. W. 1991. Theorizing about entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
16: 13-22. Carpenter, N. C., Berry, C. M., & Houston, L. 2014. A meta-analytic comparison of self-reported and other-reported
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35: 547-574. Carr, J. C., Boyar, S. L., & Gregory, B. T. 2008. The moderating effect of work-family centrality on work-family
conflict, organizational attitudes, and turnover behavior. Journal of Management, 34: 244-262. Chadwick, I. C., & Raver, J. L. 2015. Motivating organizations to learn: Goal orientation and its influence on orga-
nizational learning. Journal of Management, 41: 957-986.
Marshall et al. / Learning off the Job 3111
Chen, G., Farh, J. L., Campbell-Bush, E. M., Wu, Z., & Wu, X. 2013. Teams as innovative systems: Multilevel motivational antecedents of innovation in R&D teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98: 1018-1027.
Chiaburu, D. S., & Marinova, S. V. 2005. What predicts skill transfer? An exploratory study of goal orientation, training self-efficacy and organizational supports. International Journal of Training and Development, 9: 110-123.
Choi, J. N. 2007. Change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior: Effects of work environment characteristics and intervening psychological processes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28: 467-484.
Colquitt, J. A., & Simmering, M. J. 1998. Conscientiousness, goal orientation, and motivation to learn during the learning process: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 654-665.
Cope, J. 2005. Toward a dynamic learning perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29: 373-397.
Cope, J., & Watts, G. 2000. Learning by doing—An exploration of experience, critical incidents and reflection in entrepreneurial learning. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 6: 104-124.
Corbett, A. C. 2005. Experiential learning within the process of opportunity identification and exploitation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29: 473-491.
Crant, J. M. 1996. The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Small Business Management, 34: 42-49.
Dorenbosch, L., Van Engen, M. L. V., & Verhagen, M. 2005. On-the-job innovation: The impact of job design and human resource management through production ownership. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14: 129-141.
Douglas, E. J., & Shepherd, D. A. 2002. Self-employment as a career choice: Attitudes, entrepreneurial intentions, and utility maximization. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26: 81-90.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. 1988. A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95: 256-273.
Dyer, W. G. 1994. Toward a theory of entrepreneurial careers. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 19: 7-22. Eisenbeiss, S. A., van Knippenberg, D., & Boerner, S. 2008. Transformational leadership and team innovation:
Integrating team climate principles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 1438-1446. Eriksson, T., & Ortega, J. 2006. The adoption of job rotation: Testing the theories. ILR Review, 59: 653-666. Feuer, M., Glick, H., & Desai, A. 1987. Is firm-sponsored education viable? Journal of Economic Behavior &
Organization, 8: 121-136. Folta, T. B., Delmar, F., & Wennberg, K. 2010. Hybrid entrepreneurship. Management Science, 56: 253-269. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. 1981. Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error:
Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18: 382-388. Gardner, T. M., Wright, P. M., & Moynihan, L. M. 2011. The impact of motivation, empowerment, and skill-
enhancing practices on aggregate voluntary turnover: The mediating effect of collective affective commitment. Personnel Psychology, 64: 315-350.
Gartner, W. B. 1990. What are we talking about when we talk about entrepreneurship? Journal of Business Venturing, 5: 15-28.
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. 2004. The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambi- dexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 209-226.
Goodman, C. 2005. 25 Part-time business ideas. Entrepreneur. Retrieved from http://www.entrepreneur.com/arti- cle/64720.
Gough, H. G. 1979. A creative personality scale for the Adjective Check List. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37: 1398-1405.
Granovetter, M. 1983. The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory, 1: 201-233. Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. 2006. When work and family are allies: A theory of work-family enrichment.
Academy of Management Review, 31: 72-92. Harrison, R. T., & Leitch, C. M. 2005. Entrepreneurial learning: Researching the interface between learning and the
entrepreneurial context. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29: 351-371. Hirst, G., Van Knippenberg, D., & Zhou, J. 2009. A cross-level perspective on employee creativity: Goal orienta-
tion, team learning behavior, and individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 280-293. Hmieleski, K. M., & Corbett, A. C. 2006. Proclivity for improvisation as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions.
Journal of Small Business Management, 44: 45-63. Hobfoll, S. E. 1989. Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist,
44: 513-524.
3112 Journal of Management / November 2019
Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. 1998. Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24: 623-641.
Hofmann, D. A., Griffin, M. A., & Gavin, M. B. 2000. The application of hierarchical linear modeling to organiza- tional research. In K. J. Klein & S. W. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organiza- tions: 467-511. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Jamal, M., & Crawford, R. L. 1981. Consequences of extended work hours: A comparison of moonlighters, overtim- ers, and modal employees. Human Resource Management, 20: 18-23.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. 1984. Estimating within-group inter-rater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 85-98.
Jansen, J. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. 2006. Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52: 1661-1674.
Janssen, O. 2000. Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73: 287-302.
Kanfer, R., Frese, M., & Johnson, R. E. 2017. Motivation related to work: A century of progress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102: 338-355.
Kickul, J., & Gundry, L. 2002. Prospecting for strategic advantage: The proactive entrepreneurial personality and small firm innovation. Journal of Small Business Management, 40: 85-97.
Kim, T. Y., Hon, A. H., & Crant, J. M. 2009. Proactive personality, employee creativity, and newcomer outcomes: A longitudinal study. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24: 93-103.
Lee, S., & Meyer-Doyle, P. 2017. How performance incentives shape individual exploration and exploitation: Evidence from microdata. Organization Science, 28: 19-38.
Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. 1993. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14: 95-112. Liu, D., Gong, Y., Zhou, J., & Huang, J. C. 2017. Human resource systems, employee creativity, and firm innova-
tion: The moderating role of firm ownership. Academy of Management Journal, 60: 1164-1188. March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2: 71-87. Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Salas, E. 1992. Influences of individual and situational characteristics on mea-
sures of training effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 35: 828-847. Mom, T. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. 2007. Investigating managers’ exploration and exploitation
activities: The influence of top-down, bottom-up, and horizontal knowledge inflows. Journal of Management Studies, 44: 910-931.
Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. 1995. Individualism-collectivism as an individual difference predictor of organi- zational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16: 127-142.
Neter, J., Wasserman, W., & Kutner, M. 1985. Applied linear statistical models: Regression, analysis of variance, and experimental designs. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Noe, R. A. 1986. Trainees’ attributes and attitudes: Neglected influences on training effectiveness. Academy of Management Review, 11: 736-749.
Noe, R. A., & Schmitt, N. 1986. The influence of trainee attitudes on training effectiveness: Test of a model. Personnel Psychology, 39: 497-523.
O’Driscoll, M. P., Ilgen, D. R., & Hildreth, K. 1992. Time devoted to job and off-job activities, interrole conflict, and affective experiences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77: 272-279.
O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. 2013. Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27: 324-338.
Parker, S. C. 1997. The effects of risk on self-employment. Small Business Economics, 9: 515-522. Petrova, K. 2010. Part-time entrepreneurship, learning and ability. Journal of Management Policy and Practice,
12: 64-75. Petrova, K. 2012. Part-time entrepreneurship and financial constraints: Evidence from the Panel Study of
Entrepreneurial Dynamics. Small Business Economics, 39: 473-493. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2012. Sources of method bias in social science research and
recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63: 539-569. Politis, D. 2005. The process of entrepreneurial learning: A conceptual framework. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 29: 399-424. Raffiee, J., & Feng, J. 2014. Should I quit my day job? A hybrid path to entrepreneurship. Academy of Management
Journal, 57: 936-963. Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. 2008. Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal
of Management, 34: 375-409.
Marshall et al. / Learning off the Job 3113
Rauch, A., & Frese, M. 2007. Let’s put the person back into entrepreneurship research: A meta-analysis on the relationship between business owners’ personality traits, business creation, and success. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16: 353-385.
Rogan, M., & Mors, M. L. 2014. A network perspective on individual-level ambidexterity in organizations. Organization Science, 25: 1860-1877.
Schneider, B. 1990. Organisational climate and culture. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. H. 2013. Organizational climate and culture. Annual Review of
Psychology, 64: 361-388. Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. 1994. Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in
the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 580-607. Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. 1999. Proactive personality and career success. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 84: 416-427. Shane, S., & Nicolaou, N. 2015. Creative personality, opportunity recognition and the tendency to start businesses:
A study of their genetic predispositions. Journal of Business Venturing, 30: 407-419. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. 2000. The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management
Review, 25: 217-226. Sieber, S. D. 1974. Toward a theory of role accumulation. American Sociological Review, 39: 567-578. Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. 2013. Translating team creativity to innovation implementation: The role of team
composition and climate for innovation. Journal of Management, 39: 684-708. Sørensen, J. B., & Fassiotto, M. A. 2011. Organizations as fonts of entrepreneurship. Organization Science, 22:
1322-1331. Steele-Johnson, D., Beauregard, R. S., Hoover, P. B., & Schmidt, A. M. 2000. Goal orientation and task demand
effects on motivation, affect, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 724-738. Stevenson, H. H., & Sahlman, W. A. 1987. Entrepreneurship: A process, not a person. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Business School. Sung, S. Y., & Choi, J. N. 2014. Do organizations spend wisely on employees? Effects of training and development
investments on learning and innovation in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35: 393-412. Taylor, A., & Greve, H. R. 2006. Superman or the fantastic four? Knowledge combination and experience in innova-
tive teams. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 723-740. Thorgren, S., Nordström, C., & Wincent, J. 2014. Hybrid entrepreneurship: The importance of passion. Baltic
Journal of Management, 9: 314-329. Thorgren, S., Sirén, C., Nordström, C., & Wincent, J. 2016. Hybrid entrepreneurs’ second-step choice: The nonlin-
ear relationship between age and intention to enter full-time entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 5: 14-18.
VandeWalle, D. 1997. Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57: 995-1015.
VandeWalle, D., Brown, S. P., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, J. W., Jr. 1999. The influence of goal orientation and self- regulation tactics on sales performance: A longitudinal field test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 249-259.
VandeWalle, D., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, J. W., Jr. 2001. The role of goal orientation following performance feed- back. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 629-640.
Wallace, J. C., Butts, M. M., Johnson, P. D., Stevens, F. G., & Smith, M. B. 2016. A multilevel model of employee innovation: Understanding the effects of regulatory focus, thriving, and employee involvement climate. Journal of Management, 42: 982-1004.
Wang, C. L., & Chugh, H. 2014. Entrepreneurial learning: Past research and future challenges. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16: 24-61.
Welter, F., Baker, T., Audretsch, D. B., & Gartner, W. B. 2017. Everyday entrepreneurship—A call for entrepre- neurship research to embrace entrepreneurial diversity. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41: 311-321.
West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. 1990. Innovation at work. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies: 3-13. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
West, M. A., & Richter, A. W. 2008. Climates and cultures for innovation and creativity at work. In J. Zhou & C. E. Shalley (Eds.), Handbook of organizational creativity: 211-236. New York, NY: Erlbaum.
Zacher, H., Robinson, A. J., & Rosing, K. 2016. Ambidextrous leadership and employees’ self-reported innovative performance: The role of exploration and exploitation behaviors. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 50: 24-46.
Zwilling, M. 2014. 7 musts to make part-time entrepreneurship work for you. Entrepreneur. Retrieved from http:// www.entrepreneur.com/article/238169.