Week 4

Journal of Management Research Vol. 16, No. 2, April–June 2016, pp. 77–86

Nupur Sinha

Kailash B. L. Srivastava Department of Humanities and Social Science Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur-721302

Perceived Innovation Championing Strategies and Intrapreneurial Orientation The Role of Social Cultural Context

Nupur Sinha and Kailash B. L. Srivastava

Abstract

The study examines the impact of intrapreneurial orientation of employees on innovation championing strategies in Indian cultural context. The Data were collected from 272 executives from manufacturing sector having established record of innovation. The results show that intrapreneurial orientation has a significant impact on perceived cross-functional support championing strategies, where achievement in business/workplace produced significant and positive association. The results also suggest that when factors of culture were taken together with intrapreneurial orientation factors, it showed the significant impact on perceived cross-functional strategies. In the second model, the cultural factors acted as mediator for perceived locus of support strategies; where self-serving calculative behavior producing significant and positive results. The study has implications for management that they need to focus on increasing innovative behavior by developing entrepreneurial culture at the workplace.

Keywords: Indian social cultural context, Innovation championing strategies, Intrepreneurship orientation, Manufacturing sector, Mediation analysis

INTRODUCTION Innovation has become the keyword to the success and sustenance of organizations. With the aim of producing new products/services/processes/ strategies, organizations adapt or respond to increased global competition, technological advances, dynamism in market, and customers’ needs and demands (Brown and Eisenhart, 1995; Mitchell and Goffin, 2005). Despite the awareness of importance of innovations and investment of enormous efforts, majority of ideas fail to be put on the right path from their genesis (Desouza, 2011; Shane, Venkataraman, and MacMillan, 1995). A lot of phenomena are working in between, and studies have been directed to find out how to turn

ideas into success (Pinchot and Pellman, 1999; Shavinina, 2003). In the process, human resources are the main drivers of innovations, from idea generation to implementation (Pinchot and Pellman, 1999); and innovation requires a coordinated interplay of the key participants (idea generators, intrapreneurs, champions) (Sim, Griffin, Price, and Vojak, 2007). Intrapreneurs and innovation champions, thus, play important roles in the revival and growth of organizations.

Intrapreneurs are credited for their innovative spirits, who are ready to ‘go the extra mile’ for the organization if find a synchronization between their interests and organization’s mission (Desouza, 2011; Pinchot and Pellman, 1999). But, this innovation calls for changes in the long established ways of functioning in the organization (power, systems and structure) (Howell, Shea and Higgins, 2005; Schon, 1963; Shane, Venkataraman and MacMillan, 1995). The resistance to changes occurs to maintain the current pace of action against the unseen results of something ‘new’ (Van de Ven,

78 Journal of Management Research

1986). This creates the need for ‘innovation champions’ who take personal risks to overcome all resistances and gather all support to innovative ideas.

The literature in the recent past has started focusing on the two concepts, but these have not been studied in conjunction/together. Researches show the impact of followers’ qualities and interests on their preferences for leaders’ characteristics and behaviors (Ehrhart and Klein, 2001; Felfe and Schyns, 2006; 2010). This study examines the links between intrapreneurial orientation and perceived innovation championing strategies in organizations in India applying the emic approach. Further the study also examines the mediating effect the social-cultural factors on the relationship between innovation championing strategies and intrepreneurial orientation of employees. This study would help to understand the interplay of two concepts locally. First, the background for the study would be discussed in the next section, leading to the hypotheses.

BACKGROUND

Innovation Championing Strategies Innovation champions are individuals who help an innovative idea to be progressed towards success through the organizational stages (Howell, Shea, and Higgins, 2005; Shane, Venkataraman, and MacMillan, 1995). They emerge informally in an organization (Schon, 1963; Chakrabarti, 1974). Generally, the idea generators are at the bottom-of- the hierarchical ladder in the organizations, and it is not easy for them to promote their ideas. Champions fill-up this gap by reaching out to them, and are willing to take risks by enthusiastically promoting these ideas inside the organizations (Howell and Boies, 2004; Jenssen and Jorgensen, 2004; Maidique, 1980). The characteristics of innovation champions highlight their capacity to promote an idea, get the organizational support, persuade and influence other employees and acquire the resources to carry it forward (Howell and Higgins, 1990; Howell, Shea, and Higgins, 2005).

To serve the purpose, researchers have identified various strategies employed by champions to obtain cross-functional support, determine the locus of support, and degrees of autonomy to be given to the people working on innovations (Shane, Venkataraman, and MacMillan, 1995). The champions are effective at both the organizational as well as individual levels; significantly influencing the distribution of power, resources and strategies at the former level, and motivating and gathering support at the later level (Howell, Shea and Higgins, 2005; Shane, Venkataraman and MacMillam, 1995; Van de Ven, 1986). There is often resistance for innovations in organizations, as these pose threat to the status quo, specialized labor, established rules, and ways of functioning of the organizations. Champions help the innovators to ‘shine out’ of these circumstances.

The focus on leadership studies has mostly been on the leadership effectiveness (Bass, 1990; Bono and Judge, 2004; Higgins, Judge and Ferris, 2003). On the other hand, researchers have found that the followers’ perceptions and attributes also influence the evaluation of leadership (Ehrhart and Klein, 2001; Felfe and Schyns, 2006). Though these results were derived from studies conducted on transformational leadership, this study draws its background based on the similarity between transformational leadership and innovation championing. The behavior of transformational leaders has been suggested to be ‘creativity- enhancing’, which helps the followers to grow and produce innovatively (Bass, 1990; Howell and Higgins, 1990). The studies on championing strategies have focused on culture and followers’ perception of strategies (Shane, Venkataraman and MacMillan, 1995). This study proposes to examine the interaction of innovation championing strategies with intrapreneurial orientation in Indian cultural context.

Intrapreneurship Orientation From the follower-centric perspective, implicit leadership theories and social identity theory background, it is suggested that the characteristics

Volume 16, Number 2 • April–June 2016 79

of followers play an important role in the emergence of effective leaders in a specific situation (Eden and Leviatan, 1975; Felfe and Schyns, 2006; Haslam and Platow, 2001; Lord and Emrich, 2000). In the context of innovations in organizations, innovation champions and intrapreneurs are discussed. At the employee-level, intrapreneurship refers to the proactive and innovative initiatives of employees within the organizations, where-in the intrapreneur is more inclined to act first and explain later (Shetty, 2004). They are called ‘intra-corporate entrepeneurs’ (Pinchot and Pellman, 1999). The characteristics of intrapreneurs are similar to entrepreneurs to a great extent; the differences lie in the areas of action (within the bounds of organization or outside) and finance (Cunningham and Lischeron, 1991; Pinchot and Pellman, 1999; Sayeed and Gazdar, 2003). The intrapreneurs are at low risk because their risks are covered by organizations.

Entrepreneurs have been examined from the personality and demographic perspectives (Beaver and Jennings, 2005; Brockhaus, 1980). Attitudes were proposed as an alternative to these traits and demographic perspectives (Robinson, Stimpson, Huefner and Hunt, 1991). Attitudes are the predisposition to respond in a generally favorable or unfavorable manner with respect to the attitude object (Ciccarelli and Meyer, 2008; Robbins and Judge, 2013). Attitudes are more domain-specific and less stable (Ajzen, 1989; Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975; Robinson et.al, 1991). Robinson, Stimpson, Huefner and Hunt (1991) identified four subscales for attitudes towards entrepreneurship orientation (EAO): achievement in business, innovation in business, perceived personal control, and perceived self-esteem. Shetty (2004) undertook the study to determine the entrepreneurial/intrapreneurial attitudinal characteristics of Indian executives in IT and Financial sectors using EAO scale. The four attitude subscales in context of intrapreneurship pertains to attitudes of employees at workplace. The ‘achievement in business/work’ refers to concrete results associated with the growth of organizations. ‘Innovations in business/work’ relates to perceiving and acting upon the work, job

in new and unique ways. ‘Perceived personal control’ would concern the individual’s perception of control and influence over his/her work. ‘Perceived self-esteem’ would pertain to the self- confidence and perceived competency of the individual. Among these dimensions, innovation and achievement orientations were found to be the most prominent (Drucker, 1985; Shetty, 2004).

In the context of leader-follower relationship, individual preferences for and reactions to leaders are based mostly on (a) similarity attraction, and/ or (b) need satisfaction (Ehrhart and Klein, 2001; Felfe and Schyns, 2006; 2010). The followers give positive ratings to their leaders when there is congruence between the followers’ and leaders’ characteristics and the leaders provide means toward need fulfillment. Attitude theory and research suggests that attitudes are the primary drivers of behavior (Ajzen, 1989; Fishben and Ajzen, 1975), and that the followers’ preferences for leaders are likely to predict their behavior (Robbins and Judge, 2013; Robinson et.al, 1991). In the organizations, the favorable intrapreneurship attitude orientation (IAO) would lead to innovative activities with the help of supportive leader who would overcome the obstacles raised by the existence of specialization, systems of authority, and routines. An innovation champion is supposed to do these by attracting organizational members to the innovation effort; and deciding on the degree of autonomy from organizational norms and routines accorded to innovation participants (Shane, Venkataraman, and MacMillan, 1995). Thus, IAO would be assumed to positively relate to championing strategies.

H1: Intrapreneurial orientation factors would be positively associated with the three championing strategies.

INDIAN SOCIAL CULTURAL CONTEXT (INDIAN MINDSET)

The mindset is defined as the constellation of beliefs, preferences, practices, and action orientation that people possess and respond to their environment in particular ways (Sinha et al.,

80 Journal of Management Research

associates, 2010; Sinha and Pandey, 2007). Indian mindset represents the socio-cultural aspect, which is continuously evolving as a result of the tolerance in Indian society (Sinha, 2008; Sinha and associates, 2010). This concept is explained on the basis of context-sensitivity and balancing behaviors (Sinha and Kanungo, 1997); in relation to person (patra), time (kal), and ecological (desh) components of environment. The ‘patra’ reflects the group- embeddedness and hierarchy; ‘kal’ reflects the time- perspective; and ‘desh’ component reflects the resources.

The Hofstede’s cultural dimensions have been primarily studied in management science (Amba- Rao at.al, 2000; Hofstede, 1983; Hofstede, Neuijen, Ohayv, and Sanders, 1990; Sinha, 2008), even in relation with innovations (Elenkov and Manev, 2005; Herbig and Dunphy, 1998; Shane, 1992, 1993; Shane, Venkataraman, and MacMillan, 1995). Researchers found that social factors played more important role than the economic conditions in increasing the rates of innovations in a country (Shane, 1992; 1993; Westwood and Low, 2003); and that individualism, acceptance of uncertainty, and lack of power distance is important for innovations (Shane, 1993). On the Hofstede’s dimensions, India is high on power distance and uncertainty avoidance, and moderately collectivistic and masculine (Panda and Gupta, 2004). But, with the existence of wide cultural variance within Indian boundary, is advisable to use an emic framework for studies in India (Sinha, 2008; Sinha and Kumar,

2004; Sinha, Sinha, Verma, and Sinha, 2001).

The socio-cultural influence on the preferences, behavior and growth of individuals is very strong among Indians (Banerjee, 2008; Shivani, Mukherjee, and Sharan, 2006). In India, the paternalistic style of leadership is prevalent (Sinha and Sinha, 1990), where the superiors nurture and give ‘sneh’ (affection) to their subordinates and expect ‘shraddha’ (deference) from them. Studies indicate that Indians are ambitious and want to work innovatively for the development of their organizations (Sinha and Kanungo, 1997; Sinha et.al, 2001; Sinha and associates, 2010). The impact of Indian mindset on the follower-leader relationship is yet to be explored. Based on the discussion, it is assumed that it is related to both the followers’ and leaders’ characteristics. This leads to the following hypothesis.

H2: Indian social cultural context (mindset) would significantly influence the association of intrapreneurial attitude orientation factors with innovation championing strategies.

METHODS

Sample The Data were collected from 272 junior and middle level managers of 12 different organizations across India. The descriptive statistical analyses were conducted to find the

Table 1: Table Showing the Characteristics of the Sample

Total No. of Type of Total No. of Age Education Childhood Family Employment Organizations Organization Executives Place Type

12 Public (6) 272 21-35 years Graduation Village Nuclear Public (55.5%) (68.4%) (18.8%) Family (57.4%) (45%)

Private (6) 36-48 years PG Town/City Joint Family Private (31.3%) (30.9%) (71%) (42.6%) (55%)

49-60 years Partly Town (13.2%) and

Partly Vill. (10.3%)

Volume 16, Number 2 • April–June 2016 81

demographic distribution of the sample. The sample characteristics are given in Table 1.

Measures The questionnaire method was used for measuring the variables through survey. In order to standardize every scale in the survey, five-point Likert scale (1 representing the strongest disagreement to 5 expressing the strongest agreement with the respective item) was used. The variable-wise description is as follows.

Intrapreneurial Attitude Orientation

This scale consisted of 25 items, taken from Sayeed and Gazdar (2003) and Shetty (2004). After the item-analysis, the number of retained items was twenty-three. It consisted of four indices. The first index was self-esteem, which consisted of two

items. The second index was achievement in business/work consisting of twelve items. The third index was perceived personal control in business/work, which comprised of two items. The fourth index was innovation in business which consisted of nine items. The reliability indices of the four sub-scales were: perceived self-esteem (.75), achievement orientation (.86), perceived personal control (.86), and innovation orientation (.90).

Perceived Innovation Championing Strategies

The scale consisted of eleven items adapted from the study of Shane, Venkataraman, and MacMillan (1995), consisting of three sub-variables (degrees of autonomy, cross-functional support and locus of support). The scale of autonomy consisted of four items. The Cronbach alpha score for this scale was .68. The reliability of cross-functional support

Table 2: Table Showing the Inter-correlation among the Variables

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Se 2.84 .80 1 -.01 -.02 .00 .02 .06 .01 .11 -.00 -.00 -.05

2. Ach 4.20 .47 1 .68** .78** .06 .27** .27** .17** .07 .30** -.03

3. Pc 4.25 .68 1 .64** .07 .27** .25** .25** .12** .18** .01

4. Inn 4.00 .57 1 .02 .28** .31** .15** .09 .27** .03

5. Dup 3.77 .65 1 .19** .06 .57** .07 .07 .06

6. Cs 3.75 .49 1 .46** .39** .09 .17** .14*

7. Gab 3.80 .52 1 .18** .03 .23** .05

8. Ssc 3.78 .60 1 .18** .18** .17**

9. Aut 3.73 .66 1 .32** .40**

10. Cfs 4.28 .58 1 .03

11. Los 3.29 .73 1

Note: *Sig at .05 level **Sig at .01 level Se = Perceived self-esteem, Ach = Achievement at workplace, Pc = Perceived personal control, Inn = Innovation at work, Dup = Duplicity, Cs = Context sensitivity, Gab = Goal-achieving behavior, Ssc = Self-serving calculative behavior, Aut = Degrees of autonomy, Cfs = Cross-functional support, Los = Locus of support

82 Journal of Management Research

was .76, which consisted of three items. The Cronbach alpha for the scale of locus of support was .73, and it comprised of four items.

Indian Mindset/Socio-cultural Factors

The scale items were adapted from Sinha and associates (2010). The scale consisted of four factors: duplicity (.80), context sensitivity (.78), goal achieving behavior (.76), and self-seeking calculative behavior (.82).

Procedure With permission from authorities in the concerned organizations, the survey was conducted with the random list of employees provided by the organizations. A total of 400 questionnaires were distributed, but only 296 were returned. The response rate was 74 percent. Out of this, 24 had to be rejected because of a high rate of missing data, leaving a sample of 272. Thus, 92 percent of the returned questionnaires were appropriate for further analysis in the study. The Statistical Package

for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 13.0 was used for analyzing the Data for correlation and regression statistics.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION For the purpose of the study, the correlation and regression analyses were conducted. The Pearson’s correlation statistic was done to find out the correlations among the variables. The results are given in Table 2.

The results showed that perceived degree of autonomy strategy was positively related to personal control (r = .12, p<H .01) and self- serving calculative behavior (r = .18, p<H .01). The cross-functional support strategy was found to be positively related to achievement orientation (r= .30, p<H .01), personal control (r = .18, p<H .01), innovation orientation (r = .27, p<H .01), context sensitivity (r = .17, p<H .01), goal-achieving behavior (r = .23, p<H .01), and self-serving calculative behavior (r= .18, p<H .01). The locus of support was positively related to context

Table 3: Table Showing the Multiple Regression Analysis Results with Factors of IAO as Predictor Variables and Championing Strategies as Criterion Variables in Model 1 and

Factors of IAO and Mindset as Predictor Variables and Championing Strategies as Criterion Variables in Model 2

Variables R²  F Sig.

Model 1

Aut .01 1.02 .40

Cfs .10 .27** (Ach) 7.24 .00

Los .01 .99 .41

Model 2

Aut .04 2.23* (Ssc) 1.39 .20

Cfs .14 2.73** (Ach) 5.27 .00 2.32*(Gab) 1.99* (Ssc)

Los .06 2.2* (Ssc) 1.96 .05

Note: *Sig at .05 level **Sig at .01 level

Volume 16, Number 2 • April–June 2016 83

sensitivity (r = .14, p<H .01) and self-serving calculative behavior (r = .17, p<H .01).

The multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine the impact of intrapreneurial attitude orientations and socio-cultural factors on the innovation championing strategies. The results have been presented in two models (Table 3). In Model 1, intrapreneurial attitude orientation factors are predictor variables. In Model 2, socio-cultural factors along with Intrapreneurial attitude orientation factors were inserted as predictor variables.

In Model 1, where IAO factors were playing the predictor role, the model was significant only with cross-functional support strategy as criterion variable (R² = .10, F = 7.24; p < .01). The achievement orientation significantly and positively predicted perception of cross-functional support strategy of champions ( = .27, p < .05). Thus, the hypothesis H1 was partially supported.

In Model 2, socio-cultural factors were also used as predictor variables. It was found that they were acting independently, and produced no significant impact on the relationship between IAO factors and championing strategies. Though self-serving calculative behavior was found to be significantly and positively predicting the perceived degrees of autonomy ( = 2.23, p < .05), the outcome was not significant (R² = .04, F = 1.39, p > .05). Three factors, achievement orientation ( = 2.73, p < .01), goal-achieving behavior ( = 2.32, p < .05), and self-serving calculative behavior ( = 1.99, p < .05) were found to have significant impact on cross-functional support strategy (R² = .14, F = 5.27, p < .01). Only self-serving calculative behavior ( = 2.2, p < .05) was found to have significant and positive impact on locus of support strategy (R² = .06, F = 1.96, p < .05). The results did not support the hypothesis H2 as the socio- cultural factors did not have any intervening impact on the follower-leader relationship.

In the results, two variables featured prominently. These were perceived cross-functional support on the one hand and self-serving calculative behavior

on the other hand. In the organizations, specialization often leads the members to a focused view of only their work. This limits the horizontal flow of knowledge, which blocks the cross- functional exchange of knowledge (Shane et al., 1995). In the context of Indian social and organizational functioning, this would happen often; hence, the people depend on champions to gather the cross-functional support of knowledge for innovations. This preference for cross- functional support depends on the achievement orientation, goal-achieving behavior, and self- serving calculative behavior of employees. If the person is willing to have achievements at work and is also working towards it putting in all efforts, they prefer the leaders who would take up their cause and work towards it (Sinha and associates, 2010). The self-serving calculative behavior wherein people are calculative to serve their own interests has predicted the three strategies. For making an innovative idea work, Indians can become calculative to get all sorts of help from authorities through the champions. They would speak what the leaders want to hear, take undue advantage of innocent people, would work very hard if there is any scope to be amply rewarded (Sinha and associates, 2010). But, they would do all this to get heard and make their ideas into possible innovations. This mode of behavior pertains to the quality of molding the environmental factors into one’s favor, and rerouting to the enterprising activities.

Indian organizations have also adapted to suit to the competitive times (Sinha, 2008; Sinha and Sinha, 1990). They are adopting the necessary activities that would help the organizations to grow. A few interviews were conducted with the higher authorities in the targeted organizations to know about the activities, supported by the study of annual reports. It was found that there is emphasis on “high performance culture” and relaxation in terms of status quo. According to them, freedom to discuss and share the knowledge among the people of their professional unit is more important than maintaining the unconditional distance from seniors. In HR strategies, training and development

84 Journal of Management Research

was found to be very important for improving the skills of employees. Performance management systems including various awards, rewards, and recognitions were included to encourage employees. The organizations have either formal or informal knowledge management systems for the continuous flow of knowledge. These strategies would help the hassle-free mobility of champions to gain required knowledge, support and resources for innovations. These would also act as encouragement to the employees.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATION This study proposed to study the impact of intrapreneurial attitude orientations and socio- cultural factors on preferences for innovation championing strategies. The results of the study brought the self-serving calculative behavior of Indians into light, together with attitude towards achievement orientation at work and the preferences for strategy of cross-functional support. Indians are very achievement-oriented, and they work very hard towards their set goals. In the process, they can be selfish and self-serving and jump over any hurdles. They would want their leaders to gather the required knowledge and support from various departments for the cause of innovations.

The results have implications both for academicians and practitioners. This study extended the research on follower-leader relationship by including the context of innovation. Also, the study has used an emic approach to understand the role of socio-cultural factors in India. A global model to study the impact of

culture has given the platform for comparing the similarities and differences in the functioning of organizations at the level of national culture (Hofstede, 1983). The studies can look for more local characteristics in the cultures which can have their impact on organizational functions. This study has its significance in the current business arena where innovation has become the key to change and sustenance for organizations. The follower-leader relationship is important in organizational science because it helps the leaders to acclimatize their roles and activities, and get the best out of their subordinates (Felfe and Schyns, 2010; Sinha, 2008). Understanding of these relationships would help the organizations to match and assign “right people at the right jobs”. This study is also significant in the present scenario when the Indian government is stressing on ‘Make in India’ strategy, it adds to the psychological support to the technological knowledge.

LIMITATIONS The study has its limitations. The first limitation relates to the measuring instrument. The limitations of using interview schedule methods in surveys cannot be avoided completely, though checks in the items were included in the scales. The Data were collected only from manufacturing sector, and service and IT sectors were not included in the study. The sample size was small. Further studies can be conducted keeping in view these limitations. Studies in different sectors with a larger sample size can be done to validate the results. This will broaden the scope of “best practices in Indian organizations” in the domain of innovation management.

REFERENCES Ajzen, I. (1989), Attitude Structure and Function, in A. R. Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler and A. G. Greenwald (Eds), The Third Ohio

State University Volume on Attitude and Persuasion, pp. 241–274, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Hillsdale, New Jersey, Hove and London.

Amba-Rao, S. C., Petrick, J. A., Gupta, J. N. D. and Von der Embse, T. J. (2000), Comparative Performance Appraisal Practices and Management Values Among Foreign and Domestic Firms in India, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11: 60–89.

Banerjee, S. (2008), Dimensions of Indian Culture, Core Cultural Values and Marketing Implications: An Analysis, Cross-cultural Management: An International Journal, 15: 367–378.

Volume 16, Number 2 • April–June 2016 85

Bass, B. M. (1990), From Transactional to Transformational Leadership: Learning to Share the Vision, Organizational Dynamics, 18: 19–31.

Beaver, G. and Jennings, P. (2005), Competitive Advantage and Entrepreneurial Power: The Dark Side of Entrepreneurship, Journal of Small Business and Enter prise Development, 12: 9–23.

Bono, J. E. and Judge, T. A. (2004), Personality and Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Meta-Analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, 89: 901–910.

Brockhaus, R. H. (1980), Psychological and Environmental Factors which Distinguish the Successful from Unsuccessful Entrepreneur: A Longitudinal Study, Academy of Management Proceedings, 368–372.

Brown, S. L. and Eisenhardt, K. M. (1995), Product Development: Past Research, Present Findings and Future Directions, Academic Management Review, 20: 343–378.

Chakrabarti, A. K. (1974), The Role of Champion in Product Innovation, California Management Review, 17: 58–62.

Ciccarelli, S. K. and Meyer, G. E. (2008), Psychology, Pearson Publication.

Cunningham, J. B. and Lischeron, J. (1991), Defining Entrepreneurship, Journal of Small Business Management, 29: 45–61.

Desouza, K. C. (2011), Intrapreneurship: Managing Ideas Within Your Organization, University of Toronto Press.

Eden, D. and Leviatan, U. (1975), Implicit Personality Theory as a Determinant of the Factor Structure Underlying Supervisory Behavior Scales, Journal of Applied Psychology, 60: 736–741.

Ehrhart, M. G. and Klein, K. J. (2001), Predicting Followers’ Preferences for Charismatic Leadership: The Influence of Follower Values and Personality, The Leadership Quarterly, 12: 159–179.

Elenkov, D. S. and Manev, I. M. (2005), Top Management Leadership and Influence on Innovation: The Role of Sociocultural Context, Journal of Management, 31: 381–402.

Felfe, J. and Schyns, B. (2006), Personality and the Perception of Transformational Leadership: Impact of Extraversion, Neuroticism, Personal Need for Structure, and Occupational Self-efficacy, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36: 708–739.

Felfe, J. and Schyns, B. (2010), Followers’ Personality and the Perception of Transformational Leadership: Further Evidence for the Similarity Hypothesis, British Journal of Management, 21: 393–410.

Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior : An Introduction to Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley, MA.

Haslam, S. A. and Platow, M. J. (2001), The Link Between Leadership and Followership: How Affirming Social Identity Translates Vision into Action, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27: 1469–1479.

Herbig, P. and Dunphy, S. (1998), Culture and Innovation, Cross Cultural Management, 5: 13–21.

Higgins, C. A., Judge, T. A., and Ferris, G. R. (2003), Influence Tactics and Work Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24: 89–106.

Hofstede, G. (1983), The Cultural Relativity of Organizational Practices and Theories, Journal of International Business Studies, 14: 75–89.

Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D. D., and Sanders, G. (1990), Measuring Organizational Cultures: A Qualitative and Quantitative Study Across Twenty Cases, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 286–316.

Howell, J. M. and Boies, K. (2004), Champions of Technological Innovation: The Influence of Contextual Knowledge, Role Orientation, Idea Generation, and Idea Promotion on Champion Emergence, The Leadership Quarterly, 15: 123–143.

Howell, J. M. and Higgins, C. A. (1990), Champions of Technological Innovations, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 317–341.

Howell, M. J., Shea, C. M., and Higgins, C. A. (2005), Champions of Product Innovations: Defining, Developing, and Validating a Measure of Champion Behavior, Journal of Business Venturing, 20: 641–661.

Jenssen, J. I. and Jorgensen, G. (2004), How do Corporate Champions Promote Innovations? , International Journal of Innovation Management, 8: 63–86.

Lord, R. G. and Emrich, C. G. (2000), Thinking Outside the Box by Looking Inside the Box: Extending the Cognitive Revolution in Leadership Research, The Leadership Quarterly, 11: 551–579.

86 Journal of Management Research

Maidique, M. (1980), Entrepreneurs, Champions, and Technological Innovation, Sloan Management Review, 21: 59–76.

Mitchell, R. and Goffin, K. (2005), Innovation Management: Strategy and Implementation Using the Pentathlon Framework , Palgrave Macmillan.

Panda, A. and Gupta, R. K. (2004), Mapping Cultural Diversity within India: A Meta-Analysis of Some Recent Studies, Global Business Review, 5: 27–49.

Pinchot, G. and Pellman, R. (1999), Intrapreneuring in Action: A Handbook of Business Innovation, Berrett-Koehler Publications, San Fransisco.

Robbins, S. P. and Judge, T. A. (2013), Organizational Behavior (15th Ed), Pearson Education, Inc.

Robinson, P. B., Stimpson, D. V., Huefner, J. C. and Hunt, H. K. (1991), An Attitude Approach to the Prediction of Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 15: 13–31.

Sayeed, O. B. and Gazdar, M. K. (2003), Intrapreneurship: Assessing and Defining Attributes of Intrapreneurs, Journal of Entrepreneurship, 12: 75–89.

Schon, D. A. (1963), Champions for Radical New Inventions, Harvard Business Review, 41: 77–86.

Shane, S. (1992), Why do Some Societies Invent More than Others? Journal of Business Venturing, 7: 29–46.

Shane, S. (1993), Cultural Influences on National Rate of Innovation, Journal of Business Venturing, 8: 59–73.

Shane, S. Venkataraman, S. and MacMillan, I. (1995), Cultural Differences in Innovation Championing Strategies, Journal of Management, 21: 931–952.

Shavinina, L. V. (2003), The International Handbook on Innovation, Elsevier.

Shetty, P. (2004), Attitude Towards Entrepreneurship in Organizations, Journal of Entrepreneurship, 13: 53–68.

Shivani, S., Mukherjee, S. K., and Sharan, R. (2006), Socio-Cultural Influences on Indian Entrepreneurs: The Need for Appropriate Structural Interventions, Journal of Asian Economics, 17: 5–13.

Sim, E. W., Griffin, A., Price, R. L., and Vojak, B. A. (2007), Exploring Differences between Inventors, Champions, Implementers and Innovators in Creating and Developing New Products in Large and Mature Firms, Creativity and Innovation Management, 16: 422–436.

Sinha, J. B. P. and Kanungo, R. N. (1997), Context Sensitivity and Balancing in Organizational Behavior, International Journal of Psychology, 32: 93–105.

Sinha, J. B. P. and Kumar, R. (2004), Methodology for Understanding Indian Culture, The Copenhagen Journal of Asian Studies, 19: 89–104.

Sinha, J. B. P. and Pandey, A. (2007), Indians’ Mindsets and the Conditions that Evoke Them, Psychological Studies, 52: 1–13.

Sinha, J. B. P., Singh, S., Gupta, P., Srivastava, K. B. L., Sinha, R. B. N., Srivastava, S., Ghosh, A., Siddiqui, N., Tripathi, N., Gupta, M., Srivastava, S., Mulla, Z., Vijayalakshmi, C., and Pandey, A. (2010), An Exploration of the Indian Mindset, Psychological Studies, 55: 3–17.

Sinha, J. B. P. and Sinha, D. (1990), Role of Social Values in Indian Organizations, International Journal of Psychology, 25: 705–714.

Sinha, J. B. P., Sinha, T. N., Verma, J., and Sinha, R. B. N. (2001), Collectivism Coexisting with Individualism: An Indian Scenario, Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 4: 133–145.

Van de Ven, A. H. (1986), Central Problems in the Management of Innovation, Management Science, 32: 590–607.

Westwood, R. and Low, D. R. (2003), The Multicultural Muse: Culture, Creativity and Innovation, International Journal of Cross- Cultural Management, 3: 235–259.

Copyright of Journal of Management Research (09725814) is the property of South Asia Publications and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.