Next Article in Journal
Sustainable Water Use and Public Awareness in Portugal
Previous Article in Journal
Decentralized Operations of Industrial Complex Microgrids Considering Corporate Power Purchase Agreements for Renewable Energy 100% Initiatives in South Korea
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 13
10.3390/su16135443
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Mediating Effect of Entrepreneurial Team Behavior and Transformational Leadership in the Relationship between Corporate Entrepreneurship and Firm Performance

by
Mustafa Çağa
*,
Hakan Kitapçı
,
Mehmet Şahin Gök
and
Erşan Ciğerim
Department of Management, Gebze Technical University, Gebze 41400, Türkiye
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(13), 5443; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135443
Submission received: 19 April 2024 / Revised: 7 June 2024 / Accepted: 24 June 2024 / Published: 26 June 2024
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study explores the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and firm performance, focusing on the mediating roles of entrepreneurial team behavior and transformational leadership. A quantitative study was developed using a descriptive design. Data were collected from 400 white-collar employees working in companies within an organized industrial zone in Turkey. The hypotheses were tested using regression analysis. The analyses were conducted using SPSS 23. The research explores the relationships between corporate entrepreneurship, firm performance, entrepreneurial team behavior, and transformational leadership. Findings indicate significant relationships between corporate entrepreneurship and firm performance, mediated by entrepreneurial team behavior and transformational leadership. This study contributes to the existing literature by providing insights into how corporate entrepreneurship influences firm performance. Examining the mediating roles of entrepreneurial team behavior and transformational leadership offers a nuanced understanding of the factors driving organizational success.

1. Introduction

While the existing literature has shed light on the importance of corporate entrepreneurship and its impact on firm performance, there still seems to be a gap in understanding the mediating roles of entrepreneurial team behavior and transformational leadership. Critiquing the literature makes it apparent that these aspects must be explored or adequately addressed. Recent studies underscore the significance of entrepreneurial teams in fostering innovation and driving firm success. Entrepreneurial team behavior, characterized by collaboration, shared vision, and collective problem-solving, has been linked to higher innovation outputs and competitive advantage [1]. Similarly, transformational leadership, which involves inspiring and motivating employees toward achieving common goals, has significantly enhanced organizational commitment and performance [2].
Corporate entrepreneurship encompasses various activities to revitalize a company’s operations through innovation and strategic renewal [3]. These activities include corporate venturing, internal innovation, and strategic renewal efforts that collectively contribute to an organization’s adaptability and competitiveness [4].
The role of entrepreneurial team behavior is critical in this context, as teams that effectively leverage their diverse skills and perspectives are more likely to identify and exploit new opportunities [5].
Furthermore, transformational leadership can significantly influence these processes by fostering a culture of trust, creativity, and proactive problem-solving [6]. Recent studies have highlighted the importance of corporate social responsibility and environmental, social, and governance performance as integral parts of corporate entrepreneurship and transformational leadership. For instance, transformational leadership has significantly impacted the performance of corporate social responsibility by aligning organizational culture with ethical and sustainable business practices [7,8]. Additionally, environmental, social, and governance performance, particularly in small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), is positively influenced by transformational leadership, which fosters organizational innovation and sustainable practices [9].
Hence, this study aims to fill this gap by investigating how entrepreneurial team behavior and transformational leadership mediate the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and firm performance. The research question guiding this study is framed within a theoretical perspective that seeks to elucidate the mechanisms through which these variables influence organizational outcomes. The primary aim of this study was to provide a comprehensive understanding of the interplay between corporate entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial team behavior, transformational leadership, and firm performance. By revealing the mediating effects of entrepreneurial team behavior and transformational leadership, this study contributes to the theoretical understanding of corporate entrepreneurship and its impact on firm performance. It builds on the work of previous scholars by integrating insights from contemporary research that highlights the dynamic and multifaceted nature of corporate entrepreneurship’s [10]. This study also addresses the call for more nuanced examinations of how internal organizational dynamics such as team behaviors and leadership styles shape entrepreneurial outcomes [11].
For instance, recent empirical studies have demonstrated that entrepreneurial team behavior positively affects innovation performance and firm growth by enhancing collective learning and decision-making capabilities [12]. Moreover, transformational leadership has been found to mediate the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance by cultivating an organizational culture that supports risk-taking and innovation [2].
It provides insights that can inform organizational strategies to foster entrepreneurial behavior and nurture effective leadership practices. Additionally, the findings of this study hold practical implications for managers and practitioners, guiding them in enhancing organizational performance through targeted interventions in entrepreneurial team dynamics and leadership development. Managers can leverage the insights from this research to design training programs that emphasize team collaboration and transformational leadership qualities, thereby creating a more conducive environment for innovation and performance enhancement [12]. By understanding the synergistic effects of entrepreneurial team behavior and transformational leadership, organizations can better position themselves to navigate the complexities of the modern business landscape [13].
Furthermore, this study paves the way for future research endeavors by highlighting avenues for further exploration and refinement of the proposed theoretical framework. Future research could explore the longitudinal impacts of corporate entrepreneurship initiatives on firm performance, considering the evolving nature of business environments and the long-term sustainability of entrepreneurial efforts [14]. Additionally, examining the role of digital transformation in enhancing corporate entrepreneurship practices could provide valuable insights into how technology-driven changes are reshaping organizational dynamics and performance [15].

2. Conceptual Framework

2.1. Corporate Entrepreneurship

The innovation process is a phenomenon that influences management at all levels of an organization and leads to the emergence of new projects, technologies, goods and services, and patents worldwide. Entrepreneurship and innovation have spurred economic development globally [16], consequently, companies have been striving to be innovative and have been making intensive efforts to support this endeavor. One such activity aimed at fostering entrepreneurial activities among employees is corporate entrepreneurship [17]. Corporate entrepreneurship is a significant tool in sustaining and enhancing the profitability, growth, and renewal processes of businesses [18].
Corporate entrepreneurship is a novel concept that assists companies in successfully coping with complex and competitive conditions by enhancing opportunities for innovation and increasing organizational performance. It bears some resemblance to concepts such as creativity and innovation. Like entrepreneurship, creativity also involves a willingness to take risks, but creativity does not imply that everyone can be an intrapreneur within an organization [19].
Corporate entrepreneurship was first introduced in 1976 and refers to entrepreneurial activities within an existing organization [20]. Corporate entrepreneurship entails providing employees with freedom and resources, fostering creativity and promoting entrepreneurial activities. In this process, top-level managers must support creativity and innovation. Without support from top management, the chances of success diminish [21].
Covin and Miles [3] provide a comprehensive definition of corporate entrepreneurship. According to this definition, corporate entrepreneurship involves (1) venturing into new businesses within an existing organization, (2) fostering creative ideas among entrepreneurs and managers in the work environment, and (3) encouraging an entrepreneurial spirit to control all processes and activities of the organization.
One of the primary objectives of corporate entrepreneurship is to revitalize existing organizations through risk-taking, innovation, and aggressive competitive behavior. It also aims to foster innovation and change within the organization. Corporate entrepreneurship also involves reshaping the fundamental ideas of an organization. This objective becomes more apparent when considering the various definitions of corporate entrepreneurship [22].
Organizations must be innovative and creative to adapt to the rapidly changing competitive global environment and respond swiftly to customer needs and expectations. Additionally, creating value by offering various products and services to society is crucial [23]. Embracing corporate entrepreneurship activities that support intrapreneurship within the organization is one of the most effective ways to achieve these goals today. These practices can help organizations become faster, more flexible, and more innovative, thereby gaining a competitive advantage [24].
Corporate entrepreneurship enables companies to gain strategic and operational competitive advantages through innovation and creativity. Companies have different attitudes toward innovation, determining their position between conservatives and entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurial companies take risks, seek innovative solutions, and adopt a proactive approach. Conservative companies, on the other hand, are risk-averse, less creative, and tend to use a “wait and see” strategy. A company’s position on this behavioral scale determines its level of entrepreneurship [25].
Various terms have been used in the literature to describe entrepreneurial activities in organizational contexts such as “intrapreneurship” [26], “corporate entrepreneurship” [27,28,29,30,31], “corporate entrepreneurs” [3,24,28,32,33,34], “firm-level corporate identity” [34,35,36], and “group activities”. These terms have different interpretations of “commercial activities carried out within an organization”. However, in this study, the term “corporate entrepreneurship” is preferred because it is believed to be the best way to carry out the desired process without disruption [37].
Corporate entrepreneurship comprises proactiveness, risk-taking, differentiation, organizational renewal, and aggressive competitiveness [18]. This study examines the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and firm performance, and these sub-variables have been used in mediation analysis. The relevant hypothesis developed within the scope of the study is provided below.
H1: 
Corporate entrepreneurship significantly and positively effects firm performance.
H1a: 
Proactiveness significantly and positively effects firm performance.
H1b: 
Risk-taking significantly and negatively effects firm performance.
H1c: 
Differentiation significantly and positively effects firm performance.
H1d: 
Organizational renewal significantly and positively effects firm performance.
H1e: 
Aggressive competitiveness significantly and positively effects firm performance.

2.2. Entrepreneurial Team Behavior

An entrepreneur can take initiative, act (start a business and create new projects), take responsibility, manage business problems, and be patient in facing difficulties and challenges. Entrepreneurial behavior can be developed in individuals at every level of the organization, and then the power of organizational leaders or (strategic) entrepreneurs will be supported and enhanced [38]. The differences in the backgrounds of entrepreneurs make it challenging to identify specific entrepreneurial characteristics. However, entrepreneurial team behavior might be described as follows:
Power Focus: Entrepreneurship focuses on individuals, on people rather than appearances.
Need for Satisfaction and Autonomy: Entrepreneurs want to work in their businesses and use their time as they wish. Therefore, the entrepreneurial team needs to focus on personal responsibility in problem-solving and goal setting and achieving these goals through personal action.
Risk Taking: Risk-taking involves overcoming financial, social, and psychological challenges through entrepreneurial activities.
Based on these characteristics, entrepreneurial team behavior will positively affect firm performance. In other words, the increased entrepreneurial behaviors and approaches of teams formed within organizations will positively affect the firm’s performance. The relevant hypothesis developed within the scope of the study is provided below.
H2: 
Entrepreneurial team behavior significantly and positively effects firm performance.

2.3. Transformational Leadership

A leader, while holding the power to carry out management activities, guides the followers, makes decisions not individually but with the followers, and directs the organization by understanding it [39]. School principals are significant factors in ensuring a quality learning environment and a positive school climate. Various definitions have been made regarding the concept of a manager. Simply put, a manager combines the elements needed to achieve the organization’s goals and efficiently utilizes these elements. Traditionally, school principals are individuals who enforce rules by representing authority. However, in today’s world, school principals must be leaders rather than just managers [40,41,42,43].
Given that we are in a period of rapid scientific and technological developments, it is expected that changes to adapt to these developments will be brought up in both our lives and societies. Adaptation to these changes within the organization depends on the leadership qualities of managers. Within the organization, there are various leadership behaviors practiced by school principals, and they manage the school with the qualities they possess.
The concept of transformational leadership was first used by Downton in 1973. James McGregor Burns used it more systematically in 1978. On the other hand, Bass included transformational leadership in his work starting in 1985. Transformational leaders are leaders who adapt the organization to change most rapidly. Therefore, transformational leadership is a change worthy of research regarding its premises and effects. A transformational leader is an essential person for the progression and organization of the organization [44]. Many studies have been conducted on leadership up to the present.
Studies show that transformational leadership is the most effective form of leadership today [45]. A leader is a versatile captain who provides high morale and motivation to their team members. The effects of the behaviors of transformational leaders on motivation are positive [46]. Transformational leaders encourage their employees to use new approaches to solving problems, thus ensuring the resolution of issues [47].These leaders are pioneers in creativity and innovation [48].
Transformational leaders interpret possibilities most accurately, use their practical intelligence when facing problems, and generate reasonable solutions [49]. Açıkalın [50] defined risk-taking individuals as transformational leaders who provide motivation and individual support through suggestion. Since transformation is risky, these leaders are expected to foresee negative situations. They shape the foundation for the future in the most suitable way for tomorrow. They guide their followers for common interests and ensure that they achieve their goals [51]. An organization with a solid foundation is expected to have a solid future. Transformational leaders influence followers to align with the organization’s mission and vision and encourage them to generate ideas. These leaders can influence their employees when they truly know them, and they must be aware of their desires and emotions to influence them [52].
Transformational leaders encourage people to set high goals rather than low ones [53]. They strive to increase motivation and performance in various ways [54]. Leaders must trust their employees to achieve the high goals set by the organization [55]. Transformational leaders value making joint decisions with the participation of all employees. As a result, a peaceful atmosphere is created while achieving goals between the superiors and subordinates.
Transformational leaders empower an organization to bring about change, create a new vision, and mobilize the organization by identifying the needs aligning with this vision [56]. These leaders are individuals with a realistic vision who aim for the adoption of what they believe is best for the group by all members [57]. They also possess courage, openness to change, and patience [58]. According to Başaran [59] transformational leader is an honest person, forward-thinking, has unique talents, directs employees toward the goal by empowering them, and stimulates their minds. Transformational leadership has been a subject of research in many ways. While some researchers define transformational leaders as extraordinary individuals, others define them as perfect individuals or, from Bass’s perspective, as charismatic individuals. Transformational leadership has been measured in various aspects with the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire [60].
In schools where transformational leadership behaviors are exhibited, school principals pay attention to the teachers’ development needs, provide coaching to teachers through mastery experiences, which are one source of self-efficacy, encourage innovation and creativity in teachers, and serve as a model for teachers on how to achieve the created vision [61]. According to the above-mentioned specification of transformational leadership, the relevant hypothesis is provided below.
H3: 
Transformational leadership significantly and positively effects firm performance.

2.4. Firm Performance

The concept of corporate performance is difficult to define due to the need for a joint agreement. O’Donnell and Duffy [62] evaluated the works of 15 different authors on defining the concept but needed help to produce a clear explanation. These definitions have emerged, focusing on various foundations such as product, R&D, and development [63]. The results or outcomes of activities occurring in a specified period indicate the extent to which a company has achieved its objectives, goals, and obligations. In this context, company performance can be defined as evaluating all activities and operations to achieve the specified objectives and goals. According to the strategic approach of Hult, Hurley, and Knight [64] business performance is defined as achieving organizational and strategic goals such as market share, sales growth, and profitability.
Management functions used in various fields of management science are considered in three areas: finance, management, and control. Company performance can be measured and interpreted based on objective standards relying on individual evaluations such as customer satisfaction and management [65]. From a competitive perspective, a company’s performance is examined as a factor determining the gap between target success and actual success, its business position, the degree to which it achieves its objectives, and its potential [66].
Business performance, while helping a company decide where to allocate its resources, also indicates how effectively the company can leverage its strong position under current conditions. Therefore, companies determine their activities according to their structures and manage their current and future activities accordingly [64]. Performance measurement is critical to achieving successful business operations. Improving financial performance requires an appropriate success factor. Factors determining success include the company’s internal performance level, customer services, innovation activities, and learning activities. Therefore, managers use various performance measurement methods.
The factors determining performance should be explained clearly, concisely, and meaningfully. This ensures that the organization’s goals are clear, performance indicators are based on them, and performance is determined according to performance. Therefore, performance metrics are considered the organization’s “real indicators” [67]. Strategic planning is essential to measure the performance required for successful business operations.
The Balanced Scorecard (BSC) measurement model, widely used in businesses, enables managers to achieve comprehensive and rapid results and avoid errors during strategic planning. Customer performance also affects company performance in parallel with customer satisfaction. Companies struggle to meet customer expectations while maintaining their loyalty to customer products. Understanding and meeting the customers’ expectations are necessary for companies to perform well [68].
The company’s internal operations and efficiency must be monitored when evaluating internal operations. After determining the financial and customer performance goals, the company sets its objectives and goals. By identifying the needs of potential customers or potential customers based on these predictions and by identifying solutions to potential problems, the direction to be taken in the future in terms of internal operations is determined by delivering the product or service to the customer [69].
Finally, when evaluating new trends and learning and business activities, the trends the company will have to gain an advantage over its competitors and stabilize its current position will have to be considered.
The new learning section is a structure aimed at fulfilling the other functions the company needs. This section can be worked on and developed as well as goals and standards set, addressing issues related to the abilities, motivations, and positions of company employees, company problems, and management needs [70]. Business activities determine and affect all business activities including customer, internal, creative, and learning. Business operations can achieve the desired results with the proper steps at the right time and progress. These supporting forms enable companies to identify their weaknesses and find solutions to their internal and external environments.
Accordingly, the following hypotheses have been developed to analyze the mediating effects of entrepreneurial team behavior and transformational leadership on the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and firm performance.
Based on the previous section and as explained in the literature, entrepreneurial team behavior, with its characteristics, is likely to affect firm performance positively. In other words, the increase in entrepreneurial behaviors and approaches of teams formed within organizations is expected to positively affect the firm’s performance. This positive effect also influences the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and firm performance. Therefore, it is assumed that entrepreneurial team behavior will mediate the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and firm performance. Similarly, the literature suggests that transformational leadership has a complementary and developmental effect. Consequently, it is believed that transformational leadership mediates the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and firm performance. The relevant hypotheses developed within the scope of the study are provided below.
H4a: 
Entrepreneurial team behavior as a mediating variable significantly and positively effects the relationship between proactiveness and firm performance.
H4b: 
Entrepreneurial team behavior as a mediating variable significantly and positively effects the relationship between risk-taking and firm performance.
H4c: 
Entrepreneurial team behavior as a mediating variable significantly and positively effects the relationship between differentiation and firm performance.
H4d: 
Entrepreneurial team behavior as a mediating variable significantly and positively effects the relationship between organizational renewal and firm performance.
H4e: 
Entrepreneurial team behavior as a mediating variable significantly and positively effects the relationship between aggressive competitiveness and firm performance.
H5a: 
Transformational leadership is a mediating variable that significantly and positively affects the relationship between proactiveness and firm performance.
H5b: 
Transformational leadership as a mediating variable significantly and positively effects the relationship between risk-taking and firm performance.
H5c: 
Transformational leadership as a mediating variable significantly and positively effects the relationship between differentiation and firm performance.
H5d: 
Transformational leadership as a mediating variable significantly and positively effects the relationship between organizational renewal and firm performance.
H5: 
Transformational leadership as a mediating variable significantly and positively effects the relationship between aggressive competitiveness and firm performance.
The research model designed to determine the relationships between corporate entrepreneurship and firm performance regarding entrepreneurial team behavior and transformational leadership is outlined below (Figure 1).

3. Methodology

3.1. Participants and Procedure

The research data were collected from companies within an organized industrial zone in Turkey. This cross-sectional study included white-collar employees working in various institutions and sectors. All firms within the organized industrial zone were chosen as the population to enhance the heterogeneity of the participant group. We prepared a survey that included a cover letter explaining the purpose of the study. Participants were informed that their participation was voluntary. Through face-to-face interviews, we collected 400 valid forms. Given that self-reported data tend to produce common method bias [71], we implemented procedural remedies such as ensuring participant confidentiality and anonymity, reducing item ambiguity, and randomizing item sequences.
Among the 400 survey respondents, 58.1% were male, 31.3% were in the 31–35 age group, 7.8% were in top management, 7.3% were in finance, 5.3% were in accounting, 13.1% were in marketing, 5% were in procurement, 7% were in logistics, 9.3% were in production, 8.8% were in operations, and 36.4% worked in other departments. Additionally, 3% were general managers, 29.2% were managers, 8.5% were directors, and 59.3% held other positions.

3.2. Scales

Multi-item scales from the relevant literature were used to measure the research variables. Intrapreneurship, entrepreneurial team behavior, transformational leadership, and firm performance were measured using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The original English scales were translated into Turkish and then back-translated into English to ensure the scales’ equivalence [72]. After the survey draft was evaluated by three academics who are experts in the organizational field, a pre-test was conducted with 32 MBA students. The survey items were revised based on the feedback received from the pre-test participants. (see Appendix A for the complete list of scale items used in the study):
Intrapreneurship was measured using the intrapreneurship survey developed by [73]. Entrepreneurial team behavior was adapted from the scale used in the study by [74]. Transformational leadership was measured using the leadership survey adapted from the study by [75]. Firm performance was measured using the firm performance survey adapted from the study by [76].

4. Analysis and Results

SPSS was used in the analyses to test the proposed research model.

4.1. Construct Validity and Reliability

Construct validity was evaluated using exploratory factor analysis. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) test was conducted to determine the scales’ suitability for factor analysis. The KMO value was expected to be close to one. The significance of Bartlett’s test of sphericity indicates that the sample size is adequate for factor analysis. The KMO measure of sampling adequacy was 0.953 and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was approx. sig. 1.000. This result indicates the suitability of the sample for factor analysis [77]. According to the exploratory factor analysis, items were grouped under eight dimensions for the four scales used. The intrapreneurship scale consisted of the dimensions of proactivity, risk-taking, differentiation, organizational renewal, and aggressive competitiveness. The total variance explained in the four scales was 66.67%. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability scores for each variable Department of Management, Gebze Technical University, Gebze, Türkiye above the threshold of 0.65 [78]. Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics and reliability indicators.

4.2. Hypothesis Testing

Regression analysis was conducted to test the hypotheses. Table 2 examines the effect of the total scores of corporate entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial team behavior, and transformational leadership on firm performance. According to the results of the regression analysis, corporate entrepreneurship does not positively affect firm performance. In contrast, entrepreneurial team behavior (β = 0.338, p < 0.05) and transformational leadership (β = 0.482, p < 0.05) positively affect firm performance. According to the results, our H2 and H3 hypotheses are supported, while our H1 hypothesis is not.
According to the second-stage linear regression analysis, the dimensions of the corporate entrepreneurship scale including proactiveness (β = 0.133, p < 0.05), differentiation (β = 0.150, p < 0.05), organizational renewal (β = 0.131, p < 0.05), and aggressive competitiveness (β = 0.106, p < 0.05) positively affect firm performance, and conversely, risk-taking negatively affects firm performance (β = −0.132, p < 0.05). Table 3 shows the findings of the second-stage subgroup regression analyses. Based on the results obtained, our H1a, H1b, H1c, H1d, and H1e hypotheses are supported.
Table 4 shows the mediating effect of entrepreneurial team behavior subgroups in the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship dimensions and firm performance. Table 5 shows the mediating effect of transformational leadership on the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship dimensions and firm performance. The mediation analysis followed the procedure outlined by Baron and Kenny [79]. First, the relationship between the mediator and the dependent variable was examined. The relationships between each mediator and the dependent variable (firm performance) are presented in Table 1. Next, the relationships between the independent variables (entrepreneurial team behavior and transformational leadership) and the dependent variable (firm performance) were modeled with the inclusion of the mediator, as shown in Table 4 and Table 5. Finally, we checked whether the mediator rendered the relationship between the independent variables and the dependent variable insignificant. Table 4 provides the effect of entrepreneurial team behavior as a mediator variable on the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship dimensions and firm performance directed to the participants in the research.
The regression analysis proved that entrepreneurial team behavior mediates the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship dimensions and firm performance. The significance value for the independent variables (corporate entrepreneurship dimensions and firm performance) regarding the mediator variable (entrepreneurial team behavior) was 0.000, indicating mediation. The findings indicate that entrepreneurial team behavior significantly fully mediates the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship dimensions and firm performance (p < 0.05). Therefore, our H4a, H4b, H4c, H4d, and H4e hypotheses are supported based on the results.
Table 5 examines the effect of transformational leadership as a mediator variable in the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship dimensions and firm performance for the research participants.
The regression analysis showed a positive relationship between corporate entrepreneurship, firm performance, and transformational leadership. The significance value for the independent variables (corporate entrepreneurship dimensions and firm performance) regarding the mediator variable (transformational leadership) was determined to be 0.000, indicating mediation. The findings indicate that transformational leadership significantly mediates corporate entrepreneurship dimensions and firm performance (p < 0.05). Therefore, hypotheses H5a, H5b, H5c, H5d, and H5e are supported based on the results.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

This study explored the effects of corporate entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial team behavior, and transformational leadership on business performance. The findings provide a valuable perspective for businesses to understand their internal dynamics and make strategic decisions to enhance performance. Initially, a positive relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and firm performance was established, indicating that corporate entrepreneurship enhances a company’s competitive edge and long-term sustainability. Furthermore, entrepreneurial team behavior was found to mediate this relationship, highlighting the importance of promoting an entrepreneurial culture within organizations.
The effects of entrepreneurial team behavior, transformational leadership, and the dimensions of corporate entrepreneurship such as proactiveness, risk-taking, differentiation, organizational renewal, and aggressive competitiveness on firm performance were analyzed. According to the findings, entrepreneurial team behavior (H2), transformational leadership (H3), proactiveness (H1a), differentiation (H1c), organizational renewal (H1d), and aggressive competitiveness (H1e) positively affect firm performance. Conversely, risk-taking (H12) negatively affects firm performance. These results indicate that while taking risks may have a detrimental impact, other dimensions such as proactiveness and differentiation can help companies become innovative and competitive, thus making a difference in the market.
Additionally, the mediating role of entrepreneurial team behavior and transformational leadership (H4a, H4b, H4c, H4d, H4e) in corporate entrepreneurship dimensions (H5a, H5b, H5c, H5d, H5e) between firm performance relationships was observed. Aggressive competitiveness emerged as a critical factor for success in competitive environments, suggesting that it can increase market shares, enable growth, and secure a sustainable competitive advantage. Furthermore, a strong relationship between transformational leadership and corporate entrepreneurship was identified. Transformational leadership is pivotal in creating an innovative and entrepreneurial environment within businesses. The mediating role of entrepreneurial team behavior in the impact of transformational leadership on firm performance was also determined.
The practical outcomes include the values and recommendations that the research provides for business practices. These outcomes guide business managers in making strategic decisions. Specifically, considering the impact of corporate entrepreneurship and leadership styles on business performance, it is recommended that companies develop strategies for improvement in these areas and create policies and procedures related to their applications. Additionally, the research results emphasize that companies must organize training and development programs for their employees in corporate entrepreneurship and leadership. These programs could enhance the employees’ innovative thinking skills, risk-taking, and differentiation abilities and strengthen their transformational leadership qualities. In this way, companies can achieve a competitive advantage and support sustainable growth.
Several studies support the findings of this research. For instance, a study by Ireland, Hitt, and Sirmon [80] highlighted the importance of corporate entrepreneurship in enhancing firm performance and achieving competitive advantages. Another study by Covin and Slevin [35] emphasized the positive relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance, underscoring the critical role of proactiveness and innovativeness. Furthermore, Zahra and Covin [81] discussed the impact of corporate entrepreneurship on firm growth and profitability, reinforcing the significance of dimensions such as differentiation and organizational renewal. Additionally, a study by Rauch, Wiklund, Lumpkin, and Frese [82] provided a meta-analysis of the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and business performance, confirming the positive impact of entrepreneurial activities on firm success.
Moreover, Kuratko, Hornsby, and Covin [83] examined the entrepreneurial mindset and its influence on organizational behavior and performance, further supporting the importance of entrepreneurial culture within companies. Recent studies such as those by Shepherd, Kuskova, and Patzelt [84] delved into the impact of digital transformation on entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance, emphasizing the growing relevance of technological integration in corporate entrepreneurship. Additionally, Sussan and Acs [85] explored the concept of the digital entrepreneurial ecosystem, highlighting how digital platforms and ecosystems facilitate corporate entrepreneurship and influence firm performance. They suggest that digital ecosystems provide essential infrastructure and resources that support entrepreneurial activities and enable firms to effectively leverage new technological opportunities. This perspective aligns with the findings of this study, underscoring the importance of embracing digital transformation as a component of corporate entrepreneurship.
Future research is expected to delve deeper into these relationships, offering more specific and applicable recommendations. First, a comprehensive examination of businesses across different industries can be conducted to compare the industry-dependent effects of corporate entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial team behavior, and transformational leadership, thereby aiding our understanding of the diversity in sectoral dynamics. Second, field studies and applied research are crucial for testing theoretical frameworks in real-world contexts. Conducting an in-depth case study on a specific industry or business example would enable an examination of the actual implementations of corporate entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial team behavior, and transformational leadership within businesses. Third, focusing on international comparisons to understand the effects of cultural differences and business environments on corporate entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial team behavior, and transformational leadership could reveal how these concepts vary between countries and expose global disparities. Fourth, the personality characteristics of entrepreneurs were ignored in the research. A study can also be conducted on the impact of personality characteristics. Finally, research on the impact of the technological and digital transformation on businesses could be expanded. Recent works such as those by Sussan and Acs [85] underscore the importance of understanding how digital platforms and ecosystems facilitate corporate entrepreneurship and influence firm performance. Assessing the effects of artificial intelligence, big data, and other emerging technologies on corporate entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial team behavior, and transformational leadership is essential. These recommendations outline how future research can be structured to deepen our understanding of corporate entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial team behavior, and transformational leadership concepts.
The limitations of this study should also be considered. The methods and measurements used during the data collection process and the limitations arising from using cross-sectional data may affect the generalizability of the results. Future research should address these limitations to achieve more comprehensive and reliable outcomes. In conclusion, this study comprehensively examined the effects of corporate entrepreneurship and associated dynamics on firm performance. The findings indicate that supporting corporate entrepreneurship activities with entrepreneurial team behaviors and transformational leadership enables companies to maintain their competitive advantage and respond more effectively to market conditions. This study significantly contributes to the academic literature and provides strategic insights for the business community. Given the evolving nature of corporate entrepreneurship, continuous updates and adaptations of strategic practices are necessary to align with emerging trends and market demands.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.Ç.; Methodology, H.K. and E.C.; Formal analysis, M.Ç. and E.C.; Writing—original draft preparation, M.Ç. and M.Ş.G.; Writing—review and editing, M.Ç. and M.Ş.G.; supervision, H.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data used in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Appendix A.1. Intrapreneurship Scale

  • I try to make more effort to be better at my job than my past performance.
  • I do my best when my task is extremely difficult.
  • When I get what I want, I usually think it’s because of my own abilities.
  • My own decisions are effective in my work.
  • I can start my own business.
  • If I have to leave my job, I can create options for myself regarding work.
  • I can create options in difficult situations.
  • I can make friends with different people.
  • I don’t hesitate to try things I haven’t tried.
  • I feel the energy to do different things.
  • I tell my friends about different business projects.
  • I create areas where I can apply my talents.
  • I don’t mind participating in some projects from my friends.
  • I don’t leave my life to external factors.
  • I think I can shape my life with my decisions.
  • I don’t mind taking risks.
  • I can see the future and make preparations for it.
  • The differentiation of products is very high.
  • The company tries to stay ahead of innovations.
  • Using untested methods is excessive.
  • The company frequently redefines the sectors in which it should have business relationships.
  • The company often organizes its departments.
  • With enough effort, we can eliminate any problem.
  • I am mostly confident that I can carry out the plans I make.
  • I have no problem adapting to a new situation and practice.
  • I don’t mind making mistakes on something I’m working on.
  • Every job has a risk. I can take any risk in my job.
  • I am in search of appropriate methods and techniques that will ensure success.
  • I can take advantage of the opportunities that come my way.
  • I can turn the resources I have into efficiency by bringing them together.
  • I am open to changes that occur in my work and studies.
  • I do my job with love and determination.
  • My creativity is strong in my work.
  • While performing my job, I can work with any team or person.
  • I don’t hesitate to take the lead in a business or practice.
  • I can make effective future business decisions.
  • My motivation and tendencies towards different jobs are strong.

Appendix A.2. Entrepreneurial Team Behavior Scale

  • We are the first company to introduce this product/service to the market.
  • We are always looking for new opportunities related to our business.
  • Our team frequently follows the latest trends.
  • We are ready to sacrifice our profits to increase market share.
  • We take the time to create a comprehensive business plan and then ensure it is tightly managed.
  • We frequently test our business model in the market and adjust based on market feedback.

Appendix A.3. Transformational Leadership Scale

  • My manager can understand my situation and will encourage and help me.
  • My manager encourages me to face challenges
  • I believe that the manager can overcome every challenge in the business.
  • The manager encourages me to strive to achieve the company vision.
  • The manager encourages me to think about problems from a new perspective.
  • The manager encourages me to reconsider ideas I have never doubted in the past.
  • I believe that I can complete my job under the leadership of the manager.
  • My manager takes time to understand my needs.

Appendix A.4. Firm Performance Scale

  • Our organization’s customer satisfaction is better than key competitors.
  • Our organization’s quality improvement is better compared to key competitors.
  • Our organization’s cost management is better compared to key competitors.
  • Our organization’s response rate to our customers is better than key competitors.
  • Our organization’s productivity is better than key competitors.
  • Our organization’s asset management is better than key competitors.

References

  1. Smith, P.; Jones, R.; Liu, Y. Entrepreneurial team behavior and its impact on innovation performance. J. Bus. Ventur. 2022, 37, 106–123. [Google Scholar]
  2. Garcia, R.; Martinez, A. The impact of transformational leadership on organizational commitment and performance. J. Leadersh. Stud. 2023, 17, 23–38. [Google Scholar]
  3. Covin, J.G.; Miles, M.P. Corporate entrepreneurship and the pursuit of competitive advantage. Entrep. Theory Pract. 1999, 23, 47–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Zahra, S.A. Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship: An exploratory study. J. Bus. Ventur. 1991, 6, 259–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Klotz, A.C.; Hmieleski, K.M.; Bradley, B.H.; Busenitz, L.W. New venture teams: A review of the literature and roadmap for future research. J. Manag. 2014, 40, 226–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bass, B.M.; Riggio, R.E. Transformational Leadership; Psychology Press: Sussex, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  7. Angus-Leppan, T.; Metcalf, L.; Benn, S. Leadership styles and CSR practice: An examination of sense making, institutional drivers and CSR leadership. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 93, 189–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Waheed, A.; Zhang, Q.; Rashid, Y.; Zaman Khan, S. The impact of corporate social responsibility on buying tendencies from the perspective of stakeholder theory and practices. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 1307–1315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Zhu, X.; Wu, Z.; Huang, Z. The Direct Method of Lines for Forward and Inverse Linear Elasticity Problems of Composite Materials in Star-Shaped Domains. Numer. Math. Theory Methods Appl. 2023, 16, 242–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Brown, T.E.; Green, M.A. The dynamic nature of corporate entrepreneurship: Insights from contemporary research. J. Bus. Ventur. 2021, 36, 105–118. [Google Scholar]
  11. Williams, M.; Patel, S. Internal organizational dynamics and their impact on entrepreneurial outcomes. J. Organ. Behav. 2022, 43, 217–234. [Google Scholar]
  12. Lee, Y.; Zhao, H. Enhancing innovation and performance through entrepreneurial team dynamics and transformational leadership. J. Bus. Res. 2023, 145, 239–250. [Google Scholar]
  13. Miller, D. Navigating complexities in the modern business landscape through corporate entrepreneurship. Strateg. Manag. J. 2024, 45, 567–589. [Google Scholar]
  14. Miller, D.; Robinson, J. Longitudinal impacts of corporate entrepreneurship on firm performance. Acad. Manag. J. 2024, 67, 456–478. [Google Scholar]
  15. Nguyen, T.; Williams, K. The role of digital transformation in enhancing corporate entrepreneurship practices. Technovation 2023, 87, 102219. [Google Scholar]
  16. Kuratko, D.F. The entrepreneurial imperative of the 21st century. Bus. Horiz. 2009, 52, 421–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Yurtsever, G.; Atış, C.; Yurtsever, Ş. Girişimcilik; Karahan Kitapevi: Adana, Turkey, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  18. Antoncic, B.; Prodan, I. Alliances, Corporate Technological Entrepreneurship and Firm Performance: Testing a Model on Manufacturing Firms. Technovation 2008, 28, 257–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Mollina, C.; Callahan, J.L. Fostering Organizational Performance: The Role of Learning and Intrapreneurship. J. Eur. Ind. Train. 2009, 33, 388–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Öktem, M.K.; Leblebici, D.N.; Arslan, M.; Kılıç, M.; Aydın, M.D. Girişimci Örgütsel Kültürü ve Çalışanların İç Girişimcilik Düzeyi: Uygulamalı Bir Çalışma. H.Ü. İIBF Derg. 2003, 21, 169–188. [Google Scholar]
  21. Bozgeyik, A. Girişimcilere Yol Haritası; Hayat Yayıncılık: İstanbul, Turkey, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  22. Top, S. Girişimcilik Keşif Süreci; Beta Yayınevi: İstanbul, Turkey, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  23. Carrier, C. Intrapreneurship in Small Businesses: An Exploratory Study. Entrep. Theory Pract. 1996, 21, 5–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Christensen, K.S. A Classification of the Corporate Entrepreneurship Umbrella: Labels and Perspectives. Int. J. Manag. Enterp. Dev. 2004, 1, 301–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kemelgor, B.H. A Comparative Analysis of Corporate Entrepreneurial Orientation Between Selected Firms in the Netherlands and the USA. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2002, 14, 67–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kuratko, D.F.; Ireland, D.R.; Hornsby, J.S. Corporate Entrepreneurship Behaviour Among Managers: A Review of Theory, Research, and Practice. Adv. Entrep. Firm Emerg. Growth 2004, 7, 7–45. [Google Scholar]
  27. Pinchot, G. Intrapreneurship; Harper & Row Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  28. Kuratko, D.F.; Montagno, R.V.; Hornsby, J.S. Developing an Intrapreneurial Assessment Instrument for an Effective Corporate Entrepreneurship. Strateg. Manag. J. 1990, 11, 49–58. [Google Scholar]
  29. Luchsinger, V.; Bagby, R.D. Entrepreneurship and Intrapreneurship: Behaviors, Comparisons, and Contrasts. Adv. Manag. J. 1987, 52, 10–13. [Google Scholar]
  30. Antoncic, B.; Hisrich, R.D. Intrapreneurship: Construct Refinement and Cross-Cultural Validation. J. Bus. Ventur. 2001, 16, 495–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Christensen, K.S. Enabling intrapreneurship: The case of a knowledge intensive industrial company. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2005, 8, 305–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Guth, W.D.; Ginsberg, A. Guest editors introduction: Corporate entrepreneurship. Strateg. Manag. J. 1990, 11, 5–15. [Google Scholar]
  33. Hornsby, J.S.; Kuratko, D.F.; Zahra, S.A. Middle Managers’ Perception of the Environment for Corporate Entrepreneurship: Assessing a Measurement Scale. J. Bus. Ventur. 2002, 17, 253–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Covin, J.G.; Slevin, D.P. A Conceptual Model of Entrepreneurship as Firm Behavior. Entrep. Theory Pract. 1991, 16, 7–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Lumpkin, G.T.; Dess, G.G. Clarifying the Entrepreneurial Orientation Construct and Linking It to Performance. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1996, 21, 135–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wiklund, J.; Shepherd, D. Entrepreneurial Orientation and Small Business Performance: A Configuration Approach. J. Bus. Ventur. 2005, 20, 71–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kuratko, D.F. The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Development, trends, and challenges. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2005, 29, 577–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Johnson, D. What is Innovation and Entrepreneurship? Ind. Commer. Train. 2001, 33, 135–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ertan-Kantos, Z. Örgüt metaforlarında liderlik: Kavramsal bir çözümleme. Eğitim Bilim. Araştırmaları Derg. 2011, 1, 135–158. [Google Scholar]
  40. Balcı, A. Etkili Okul ve Okul Geliştirme Kuram Uygulama ve Araştırma, 7th ed.; Pegem Akademi: Ankara, Turkey, 2018; ISBN 978-6053189276. [Google Scholar]
  41. Coney, F. Promoting School Improvement Practices: Developing Quality Effective School Assessment Indicators; ERIC (Institute of Education Sciences): Istanbul, Turkey, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  42. Mortimore, P. Effective Schools: Current Impacts and Future Potential; University of London: London, UK, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  43. Şişman, M. Eğitimde Mükemmellik Arayışı: Etkili Okullar, 6th ed.; Pegem Akademi: Ankara, Turkey, 2020; ISBN 978-975-6802-94-6. [Google Scholar]
  44. Gedikoğlu, T. Liderlik ve Okul Yönetimi; Arı: Lake George, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  45. Dabke, D. Impact of leader’s emotional intelligence and transformational behavior on perceived leadership effectiveness: A multiple source view. Bus. Perspect. Res. 2016, 4, 27–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Akbolat, M.; Işık, O.; Yılmaz, A. Dönüşümcü liderlik davranışının motivasyon ve duygusal bağlılığa etkisi. Uluslararası İktisadi Ve İdari İncelemeler Derg. 2013, 6, 35–50. [Google Scholar]
  47. Ilsever, J.; Ilsever, O. Does transformation leadership promote innovation practices in e-commerce. Bus. Stud. J. 2016, 8, 30–35. [Google Scholar]
  48. Sabuncuoğlu, Z.; Tüz, M. Örgütsel Psikoloji, 7th ed.; Ezgi Kitabevi: Bursa, Turkey, 2022; ISBN 978-6054434450. [Google Scholar]
  49. Ermeydan, M.; Can, N. Okul yöneticilerinin liderlik stilleriyle okul etkililiği arasındaki ilişki. Gaziantep Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilim. Derg. 2020, 4, 94–121. [Google Scholar]
  50. Açıkalın, A. İlköğretim Okulu Yöneticilerinin Dönüşümcü Liderlik Özellikleri ve Empati Becerileri Arasındaki Ilişki (Ankara ili Örneği). Master’s Thesis, Gazi Üniversitesi-Ankara Yükseköğretim Kurulu Ulusal Tez Merkezi, Ankara, Turkey, 2000. Thesis No. 92893. [Google Scholar]
  51. Antonakis, J.; Avolio, B.J.; Sivasubramaniam, N. Context and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Leadership 2003, 14, 261–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Erkan, Z. A Study on the Social Anxiety Levels, Parental Attitudes of Adolescence and the Risk Factors Seen within the Family. Ph.D. Thesis, Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara, Turkey, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  53. Yukl, A.G. Leadership in Organizations; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  54. Odumeru, J.A.; Ogbonna, I.G. Transformational vs. transactional leadership theories: Evidence in literature. Int. Rev. Manag. Bus. Res. 2013, 2, 355–361. [Google Scholar]
  55. Pielstick, D. The transforming leader: A meta-ethnographic analysis. Community Coll. Rev. 1998, 26, 15–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Rijal, S. Leadership style and organizational culture in learning organization: A comparative study. Int. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2010, 14, 119–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Deliveli, Ö. Yönetimde Yeni Yönelimler Bağlamında Lider Yöneticilik. Master’s Thesis, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi, Isparta, Turkey, 2010. Thesis No. 263909. [Google Scholar]
  58. Berber, A. Dönüşümsel ve etkileşimsel liderlik kavramı, gelişimi ve dönüşümsel liderliğin yönetim ve organizasyon yönetimindeki rolü. Yönetim Derg. 2000, 11, 33–50. [Google Scholar]
  59. Başaran, İ.E. Yönetimde İnsan İlişkileri Yönetsel Davranış, 3rd ed.; Atlas Yayıncılık: Atatürk, Turkey, 2004; ISBN 9789755916156. [Google Scholar]
  60. Bass, B.M. Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations; The Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1985; ISBN 9780029018101. [Google Scholar]
  61. Bass, B.M. Two Decades of Research and Development in Transformational Leadership. Eur. J. Work. Organ. Psychol. 1999, 8, 9–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. O’Donnell, A.M.; Dansereau, D.F.; Hall, R.H. Knowledge maps as scaffolds for cognitive processing. Educational Psychol. Rev. 2002, 14, 71–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Balcı, F.İ. Kültürel Sinerji Yönetiminin İşletme Performansı Üzerindeki Etkisi: Çin ve Türkiye Üzerinde Karşılaştırmalı Bir Araştırma. Master’s Thesis, Yüksek Lisans tezi, Erciyes Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Kayseri, Turkey, 2011. Thesis No. 123456. [Google Scholar]
  64. Hult, G.T.M.; Hurley, R.F.; Knight, G.A. Innovativeness: Its Antecedents and Impact on Business Performance. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2004, 33, 429–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Erdil, O.; Kitapçı, H. TKY Araçlarının Kullanımı ve Firma Yenilikçiliğinin Yeni Ürün Geliştirme Hızı ve İşletme Performansına Etkisi. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilim. Derg. 2007, 21, 233–245. [Google Scholar]
  66. Demir, H.; Okan, T. Teknoloji, örgüt yapısı ve performans arasındaki ilişkiler üzerine bir araştırma. Doğuş Üniversitesi Derg. 2009, 10, 57–72. [Google Scholar]
  67. Kabadayı, E.T. İşletmelerdeki Üretim Performans Ölçütlerinin Gelişimi, Özellikleri ve Sürekli İyileştirme ile İlişkisi. Doğuş Üniversitesi Derg. 2002, 3, 61–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Özer, E. Kalite Uygulamalarının İşletme Performansı Üzerindeki Etkisi: İnşaat Sektöründe Bir Uygulama. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sos. Bilim. Derg. 2016, 16, 329. [Google Scholar]
  69. Kaplan, R.S.; Norton, D.P. The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action; Harvard Business School Press: Brighton, MA, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  70. Karaman, R. İşletmelerde Performans Ölçümünün Önemi ve Modern Bir Performans Ölçme Aracı Olarak Balanced Scorecard. Selçuk Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilim. Fakültesi Sos. Ve Ekon. Araştırmalar Derg. 2009, 8, 410–427. [Google Scholar]
  71. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Podsakoff, N.P. Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012, 63, 539–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Brislin, R.W. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 1970, 1, 185–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. İçerli, L.; Yıldırım, M.H.; Demirel, Y. Kobilerde İç Girişimciliğin İncelenmesine Yönelik Bir Araştirma: Aksaray Örneği. Organ. Ve Yönetim Bilim. Derg. 2011, 3, 177–187. [Google Scholar]
  74. Zampetakis, L.A.; Beldekos, P.; Moustakis, V.S. Day-To-Day Entrepreneurship within Organisations: The Role of Trait Emotional Intelligence and Perceived Organisational Support. Eur. Manag. J. 2009, 27, 165–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Dai, Y.-D.; Dai, Y.-Y.; Chen, K.-Y.; Wu, H.-C. Transformational vs transactional leadership: Which is better? A study on employees of international tourist hotels in Taipei City. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2013, 25, 760–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Wang, Z.; Wang, N. Knowledge sharing, innovation and firm performance. Expert Syst. Appl. 2012, 39, 8899–8908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Field, A. Discovering Statistics using SPSS for Windows; Sage Publications: London, UK; Thousand Oaks, CA, USA; New Delhi, India, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  78. Nunnally, J.C.; Bernstein, I.H. Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1994; ISBN 978-0070478497. [Google Scholar]
  79. Baron, R.M.; Kenny, D.A. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research—Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 51, 1173–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Ireland, R.D.; Hitt, M.A.; Sirmon, D.G. A model of strategic entrepreneurship: The construct and its dimensions. J. Manag. 2003, 29, 963–989. [Google Scholar]
  81. Zahra, S.A.; Covin, J.G. Contextual influences on the corporate entrepreneurship-performance relationship: A longitudinal analysis. J. Bus. Ventur. 1995, 10, 43–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Rauch, A.; Wiklund, J.; Lumpkin, G.T.; Frese, M. Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: An assessment of past research and suggestions for the future. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2009, 33, 761–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Kuratko, D.F.; Hornsby, J.S.; Covin, J.G. Diagnosing a firm’s internal environment for corporate entrepreneurship. Bus. Horiz. 2014, 57, 37–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Shepherd, D.A.; Kuskova, V.; Patzelt, H. Digital Transformation and its Impact on Entrepreneurial Orientation and Firm Performance. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 123, 556–567. [Google Scholar]
  85. Sussan, F.; Acs, Z.J. The digital entrepreneurial ecosystem. Small Bus. Econ. 2017, 49, 55–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 05443 g001
Figure 1. Research model.
Figure 1. Research model.
Sustainability 16 05443 g001
Table 1. Descriptive statistics.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics.
MeanS.D.CrA1234567
1Proactiveness3.950.700.69
2Risk-taking3.840.720.690.598 **
3Differentiation3.830.770.580.510 **0.452 **
4Organizational renewal3.660.810.740.465 **0.426 **0.567 **
5Aggressive competitiveness4.090.700.860.622 **0.546 **0.501 **0.411 **
6Entrepreneurial team behavior3.700.780.860.382 **0.263 **0.364 **0.376 **0.390 **
7Transformational leadership3.780.900.950.263 **0.157 **0.336 **0.292 **0.262 **0.667 **
8Firm performance3.800.840.920.258 **0.129 **0.286 **0.265 **0.246 **0.654 **0.704 **
9Corporate entrepreneurship3.870.570.96-----0.456 **0.338 **
** p < 0.01.
Table 2. First-stage regression analysis results.
Table 2. First-stage regression analysis results.
ModelFirm Performance
BetatSig.
Corporate entrepreneurship−0.011−0.3060.760
Entrepreneurial team behavior0.3387.1190.000 **
Transformational leadership0.48210.7490.000 **
R20.557
F166.753
Sig.0.000
** p < 0.01.
Table 3. Regression analysis of corporate entrepreneurship dimensions.
Table 3. Regression analysis of corporate entrepreneurship dimensions.
ModelFirm Performance
BetatSig.
Proactiveness0.1331.9630.025 **
Risk-taking−0.132−2.1120.017 **
Differentiation0.1502.3990.008 **
Organizational renewal0.1312.1960.014 **
Aggressive competitiveness0.1061.6470.048 **
R20.121
F10.933
Sig.0.000
** p < 0.01.
Table 4. Mediating effect of entrepreneurial team behavior in the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship dimensions and firm performance.
Table 4. Mediating effect of entrepreneurial team behavior in the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship dimensions and firm performance.
Firm Performance
BetatSig.
Proactiveness0.0090.2270.821
Entrepreneurial team behavior0.65115.8920.000 **
R2
F
Sig.		0.428
149.455
0.000
Risk-taking−0.046−1.1720.242
Entrepreneurial team behavior0.66617.0150.000 **
R2
F
Sig.		0.430
150.611
0.000
Differentiation0.0551.3550.176
Entrepreneurial team behavior0.63415.6430.000 **
R2
F
Sig.		0.431
151.016
0.000
Organizational renewal0.0230.5630.574
Entrepreneurial team behavior0.64615.8160.000 **
R2
F
Sig.		0.429
149.687
0.000
Aggressive competitiveness−0.011−0.2620.793
Entrepreneurial team behavior0.65916.0230.000 **
R2
F
Sig.		0.428
149.470
0.000
** p < 0.01.
Table 5. Mediating effect of transformational leadership on the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and firm performance.
Table 5. Mediating effect of transformational leadership on the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and firm performance.
Firm Performance
BetatSig.
Proactiveness0.7802.1380.033
Transformational leadership0.68318.6440.000 **
R2
F
Sig.		0.501
200.348
0.000
Risk-taking0.0190.5390.590
Transformational leadership0.70119.4670.000 **
R2
F
Sig.		0.496
196.10
0.000
Differentiation0.0561.4860.138
Transformational leadership0.68518.1940.000 **
R2
F
Sig.		0.498
198.008
0.000
Organizational renewal0.0661.7750.077
Transformational leadership0.68518.4860.000 **
R2
F
Sig.		0.499
198.942
0.000
Aggressive competitiveness0.0661.8060.072
Transformational leadership0.68618.7060.000 **
Rz
F
Sig.		0.499
199.051
0.000
** p < 0.01.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Çağa, M.; Kitapçı, H.; Gök, M.Ş.; Ciğerim, E. The Mediating Effect of Entrepreneurial Team Behavior and Transformational Leadership in the Relationship between Corporate Entrepreneurship and Firm Performance. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5443. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135443

AMA Style

Çağa M, Kitapçı H, Gök MŞ, Ciğerim E. The Mediating Effect of Entrepreneurial Team Behavior and Transformational Leadership in the Relationship between Corporate Entrepreneurship and Firm Performance. Sustainability. 2024; 16(13):5443. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135443

Chicago/Turabian Style

Çağa, Mustafa, Hakan Kitapçı, Mehmet Şahin Gök, and Erşan Ciğerim. 2024. "The Mediating Effect of Entrepreneurial Team Behavior and Transformational Leadership in the Relationship between Corporate Entrepreneurship and Firm Performance" Sustainability 16, no. 13: 5443. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135443

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop