MoharYusof, Assistant Professor and Program Director, Bank Rakyat School of Business and Entrepreneurship, UniversitiTun Abdul Razak, Malaysia, email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
Mohammad SaeedSiddiq, Visiting Professor, Graduate School of Business, UniversitiTun Abdul Razak, Malaysia, email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
LeilanieMohd Nor, Lecturer, Bank Rakyat School of Business and Entrepreneurship, UniversitiTun Abdul Razak, Malaysia, email: leilanie@ unirazak.edu.my

Abstract

This paper focused on academic entrepreneurship, an emerging phenomenon in Malaysian public research universities. The research demonstrated that academic entrepreneurship produced positive impact on research commercialization and university technology transfer for these public research universities. Academic entrepreneurship was also found to be one of the missing gaps in fulfilling the complete process of research and development up to commercialization. This study provided evidence of the appropriateness of using an organizational framework of academic entrepreneurship to measure the influence of the internal environment in stimulating the level of academic entrepreneurship. The results demonstrated that control systems, organizational culture, human resource management systems and entrepreneurial leadership behaviour were key predictors of academic entrepreneurship in these universities.

Keywords: Entrepreneurship, Corporate Entrepreneurship, Academic Entrepreneurship, Internal Environment, University Technology Transfer, Public Research Universities

Introduction

Academic entrepreneurship is an emerging phenomenon of interest in Malaysian public research universities. It is important because the development of academic entrepreneurship should have a positive impact on research commercialization and university technology transfer for these public research universities. Further, academic entrepreneurship is one of the missing gaps in fulfilling the complete process of research and development up to commercialization. In this study, academic entrepreneurship is articulated as the process of creating economic value through acts of organizational creation, renewal, or innovation that occurs within or outside the university that results in research commercialization and technology transfer (Yusof et. al., 2009; 2010).

Academic entrepreneurship is a process that occurred within the organizational boundary of the university and it facilitated and encouraged university technology transfer between the university and the industry. Consequently, a higher degree of academic entrepreneurship orientation will result in a greater number of technology transfer activities between the university and the industry. This research was pursued with the view that universities which integrate teaching and research with innovation and entrepreneurialism unleash and provide a vast resource that can be used for the betterment of the supporting and surrounding communities and industries.

With a focus on organizational context and the internal environment, this study examined the internal factors of academic entrepreneurship in Universiti Malaya (UM), Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) and Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) by adopting the corporate entrepreneurship lens and measured academic entrepreneurship as an organization-level construct. An organizational framework was constructed on the theory that internal factors which comprise of control systems, structure, human resource management systems, culture and entrepreneurial leadership behavior influence academic entrepreneurship in a university setting. More specifically, the research aimed to:

  • investigate the nature of relationship between the internal factors and the level of academic entrepreneurship in the four public research universities, and,
  • propose an organizational model of academic entrepreneurship.

Literature review

The literature review for this research was done extensively, encompassing an exploration of the field of entrepreneurship, organizational entrepreneurship and academic entrepreneurship. Most importantly, the review and examination of literature was directed towards describing the internal factors that may influence academic entrepreneurship in a university setting; and identifying the dimensions and elements of academic entrepreneurship. In the literature, other than individual entrepreneurs, researchers had posed concepts of teams and organizations as entrepreneurs. There were also efforts to relate entrepreneurship to values and value added concepts.

Entrepreneurship research began to focus on different units of analysis, ranging from individuals and teams to organizations and communities. Entrepreneurship research varied in context examined, such as new firms and organizations, existing corporations, family businesses, franchises and new international entrepreneurial activity. Due to this development, there was concern about how entrepreneurs act and the managerial behavior of the entrepreneur (Bygrave & Hofer, 1991; Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990; Meyer et. al., 2002; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000; Busenitz et. al., 2003; Schildt et. al., 2006; Gregoire et. al., 2006; Morris et. al., 2008).

The consideration of how entrepreneurs act gave entrepreneurship a practical point of view and led towards the application of entrepreneurship to organizations. This also led to the extension of the corporate entrepreneurship view from merely the study of internal venturing to the study of the ability of organizations to act entrepreneurially (Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990). Corporate entrepreneurship has become a distinct theme in entrepreneurship research and one of the most cited, densely populated and coherent groups of prior studies. It is also one of the streams in entrepreneurship research which has obtained conceptual convergence. These findings were supported by studies published in Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice in May 2006 issue which conducted bibliometric analyses on entrepreneurshiprelated literature (Schildtet. al., 2006; Gregoireet. al., 2006). In this regard, corporate entrepreneurship was deemed apt to be the background theory for this study.

This study was built on previous and emerging corporate-based literature within the overall discipline of entrepreneurship to explain the nature of academic entrepreneurship. The corporate entrepreneurship perspective was preferred because it offers an alternative to the traditional perspective of entrepreneurship that is centered on the role of the individual and the sequential stages of organizational development as posited by organizational life cycle theory. Further, the perspective has the potential for better understanding the organizational context, institutional setting and the dynamic nature of the academic entrepreneurship phenomenon (Brennan et. al., 2005; Brennan and McGowan, 2006; Llano, 2006, Wood, 2011, Clarysse et. al., 2011).

In addition, the study identified three research categories of university-level entrepreneurship namely ‘entrepreneurial university’, ‘academic entrepreneurship’ and ‘university technology transfer’ in the literature. At times, these concepts have been used interchangeably (O’Shea et. al., 2004, Powers and McDougall, 2005). Previous research and studies on entrepreneurial university, academic entrepreneurship and university technology transfer had been concerned and focused on institutional policies, the organizational and institutional environment, the individual academic entrepreneur and the relationship between the university and its external environment. The research contributed to the literature by delineating the boundaries of university-level entrepreneurship and developed a framework to depict the relationship between the research categories as shown in Figure 1 (Yusof and Jain, 2010).

Synthesizing and evaluating the literature, the research articulated the relationship between the entrepreneurial university, academic entrepreneurship and university technology transfer as follows:

  • An entrepreneurial university is a university that strategically adapts the entrepreneurial mindset throughout the organization and extensively practices academic entrepreneurship which is extended beyond the boundary of the entrepreneurial university through university-industry technology transfer activities.
  • Academic entrepreneurship is a process that begins within the organizational boundary of the university. This suggests that an entrepreneurial university can be compared to a less entrepreneurial one by measuring the level of its academic entrepreneurship.
  • Academic entrepreneurship facilitates and fosters university technology transfer between the entrepreneurial university and the industry. Thus, a higher degree of academic entrepreneurship orientation will result in a greater number of technology transfer activities between the university and the industry.
Figure 1. A Framework Depicting the Relationship between University-Level Entrepreneurship, Industry and External Environment
EU – Entrepreneurial University
AE – Academic Entrepreneurship
UTT – University Technology Transfer
Source: This study and published in Yusof, M. and Jain, K.K. (2010) Categories of University-Level Entrepreneurship: A Literature Survey, The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 6 (1), 81-96.

Several gaps were identified in the literature which included the paucity of research on the influence of internal factors on academic entrepreneurship in university organizations, the unavailability of a uniformed scale to measure academic entrepreneurship at the organizational level of the university, the paucity of research using corporate entrepreneurship as the theoretical lens, the lack of empirical research to explain the phenomenon in the context of Malaysian public research universities, a gap in the understanding of entrepreneurial leadership in the context of research universities and its relationship with academic entrepreneurship and the paucity of research that considered the elements of the internal environment comprising of structure, control systems, human resource management systems and culture in a single study.

Building upon Ireland et. al.’s (2006a; 2006b) Corporate Entrepreneurship Climate Instrument CECI model, which theorized that corporate entrepreneurship is stimulated and supported by factors within the internal environment of the organization, the organizational framework of academic entrepreneurship depicted in Figure 2 was developed as the research framework for this study and proposed that the level of academic entrepreneurship, as the dependent variable and measured as an organization-level construct, would be strongly influenced by the identified organizational antecedents. These antecedents became the independent variables of the research framework.

Figure 2. Research Framework

In addition, the research framework proposed that developing academic entrepreneurship in an existing university which has been governed in a bureaucratic manner into an administrative system that facilitates entrepreneurship would require entrepreneurial leadership among academic leaders with skills capable of overcoming various hierarchical and internal constraints, and conflicts. Further, the main challenge in nurturing academic entrepreneurship is to have the ability to build an entrepreneurial mindset which pervades the entire university organization. Thus, the study proposed that entrepreneurial leadership behavior should be made an explicit factor in the framework because academic leaders need to create an organizational context that encourages the exhibition of an entrepreneurial mindset and behavior by and among individuals.

The study took the process approach in defining academic entrepreneurship and articulated academic entrepreneurship as organizational processes that results in research and technology commercialization. In this light, research and technology commercialization was regarded as the end outcome of academic entrepreneurship rather than it being academic entrepreneurship itself. Further, these processes involved organizational actions in the form of organizational creation, renewal and innovation. This view broadened the scope of academic entrepreneurship because previous studies tended to equate and limit academic entrepreneurship to just new venture creation.

Research methodology

The methodology involved the collection and analysis of quantitative data and the implementation of this design were guided by the research framework. This study referred to Brennan et. al.’s (2005) and Brennan and McGowan’s (2006) framework that conceptualized the domain of academic entrepreneurship by identifying contributory streams of research, relating these categories to corporate entrepreneurship and used to investigate the enablers and barriers to entrepreneurship taking place in a university setting. This study extended the categorization of academic entrepreneurship based on the dimensions of corporate entrepreneurship by adopting and modifying Zahra’s (1996) measure for corporate entrepreneurship.

It was postulated that academic entrepreneurship encompasses internal or external corporate venturing, innovation and strategic renewal performed inside or outside the university. Academic entrepreneurship may occur at the level of individuals or groups of individuals, acting independently or as part of a university system, who create new organizations, or instigate renewal or innovation within the university or outside the university via science and technology parks, university-owned corporate firms or research centers (Chrisman et. al., 1995; Röpke, 1998; Sharma and Chrisman, 1999; Brennan and McGowan, 2006). Table 1 describes the dimensions of academic entrepreneurship.

Table 1. Dimensions of Academic Entrepreneurship
Academic EntrepreneurshipDescriptionSource
Organizational creation enture creation by expanding operations in existing or new markets through university start-ups, companies, spin-offs or spin-outs and strategic alliances, joint ve Chrisman et. al., 1995
Zahra, 1996
Sharma & Chrisman, 1999
Etzkowitz, 2003
O’Shea et. al., 2004
Powers & McDougall, 2005
Brennan & McGowan, 2006
Organizational innovation The university’s commitment to pursue research and development in creating and introducing scientific breakthrough, new inventions and products; introducing new ways of doing things in terms of production processes and organizational systems within the university; and, transferring and commercializing new knowledge and technology for economic and social development Chrisman et. al., 1995
Zahra, 1996
Sharma & Chrisman, 1999
Etzkowitz & Klofsten, 2005
Röpke, 1998
Brennan et. al., 2005
Kirby, 2006
Morris, Kuratko & Covin, 2008
Organizational renewal The transformation of the existing academic organizations through the renewal or reshaping of the ideas in which they are built; by building or acquiring new capabilities and then creatively leveraging them to add value for stakeholders; and, through revitalizing the organization’s operations by changing the scope of its business, its competitive approach or both Zahra, 1996
Sharma & Chrisman, 1999
Etzkowitz, 2003
Meyer et. al., 2002
Brennan et. al., 2005
Brennan & McGowan, 2006
Kirby, 2006
Morris, Kuratko & Covin, 2008

The internal work environment can profoundly influence the propensity of innovative behavior in academic entrepreneurs. However, this aspect was not given enough attention in past studies on academic entrepreneurship (Brennan and McGowan, 2006). Further, university organizational designs had been identified as key construct of interest in some studies (Etzkowitz, 2003; Etzkowitz and Klofsten, 2005). Organizational or work climate can be defined by an array of elements including the extent of autonomy/control, degree of structure, nature of rewards, consideration, warmth and support (Victor and Cullen, 1988) and there is no single type of work climate (Schneider, 1975).

Ireland et. al.’s corporate entrepreneurship model (2006a; 2006b) identified structure, controls, human resource management systems and culture as crucial when it comes to facilitating or inhibiting entrepreneurship in organizations. This study adopted this particular model to examine the relationship between internal factors and academic entrepreneurship. Table 2 describes the dimensions of the internal environment.

Table 2. Dimensions of the Internal Environment
Internal FactorsDescription
1. Organizational Structure
  • Horizontal over vertical
  • Few layers
  • Broader spans of control
  • Decentralization
  • Cross-functional processes
  • Less formalization
  • Open communication flow
  • Sense of smallness
2. Control systems
  • Control based on ‘no surprises’
  • Loose-tight control properties
  • Resource slack
  • Internal venture capital pools
  • Emphasis on self-control
  • Empowerment and discretion
  • Mutual trust
  • Open information sharing
3. Human resource management systems
  • Jobs that are broad in scope
  • Multiple career paths
  • Extensive job socialization
  • Individual and group awards
  • High employee involvement in appraisals
  • Longer-term reward emphasis
  • Appraisal and reward criteria include innovativeness and risk-taking
4. Culture
  • Entrepreneurial learning
  • Balanced individual-collective emphasis
  • Emphasis on excellence
  • Emotional commitment
  • Freedom to grow and to fail
  • Emphasis on results over process
  • Celebration of innovation
  • Healthy dissatisfaction and a sense of urgency
  • Focus on the future
Source: Ireland, Kuratko and Morris (2006a; 2006b).

These organizational factors can be barriers to entrepreneurship development in universities due to the inherent nature of education institutions being large organizations and the lack of enterprise tradition within them (Kirby, 2006). It is not the education institutions themselves which are inimical to entrepreneurship but traditional structures, bureaucracy, values and practices. Nevertheless, bureaucratic structures, practices and systems can be molded into a way that enables and arguably stimulates entrepreneurial practices (Sadler, 2001).

This study argued that academic leaders in the university need to behave entrepreneurially in order to stimulate academic entrepreneurship. Hence, it was proposed that the entrepreneurial behavior of academicians enables academic entrepreneurship in the university. Entrepreneurial leadership can be described as visionary leadership with inherent focus on opportunities, building/creating, creative destruction/rearrangement, dynamic stake, staged investment, medium term and has an exit strategy (Thornberry, 2006).

There are various leadership theories and instruments that measure leadership behavior. Since the focus of this study was to investigate the level of entrepreneurial behavior in academicians and its association to academic entrepreneurship, Thornberry’s (2006) instrument on General Entrepreneurial Leadership behavior was adopted. It was posited that in general, entrepreneurial academic leaders exhibit the following behaviors:

  • Encourage the bending/circumvention of university rules when they get in the way of achieving strategic goals and initiatives,
  • Get things done even if it means going around the system,
  • Willingly move ahead with a promising new approach when others might hold back,
  • Promote an environment where risk-taking is encouraged,
  • Encourage others to outwit and outmaneuver the university’s bureaucracy,
  • Quickly utilize different approaches to overcoming obstacles when the initial one does not work,
  • Demonstrate an entrepreneurial orientation at work,
  • Actively fight the encroachment of bureaucracy in the university, and
  • Willingly listen to suggestions from others about how to do things differently

Kuratko and Hornsby (1998) advocated the concept of entrepreneurial leadership as being a critical factor for 21st century organizations. Using corporate entrepreneurship as the focal theory, they espoused the critical relationship an interaction between individuals’ behaviors and the organization’s internal environment. This relationship and critical interaction are affected by entrepreneurial leadership. Entrepreneurial leaders are supposed to recognize these elements and relationship in enacting entrepreneurship within organizations. These elements include developing the vision of innovation, the development of innovation itself, developing venture teams and structuring an entrepreneurial climate.

Sampling Strategy

The targeted population frame comprised of academic staff categorized as professors, associate professors, senior lecturers and lecturers. The Directory of Academic Profiles established by the Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia, was used as the source for the sampling frame. The study obtained statistical, quantitative results from a stratified sample of 312 academicians from the four public research universities. Table 3 demonstrates the distribution of the respondents with respect to their academic designations and divides them into respective universities and stratums.

Table 3. Sample Distributon by Universites and Stratums
UniversityProfessorsAssoc. Prof.S. LecturersLecturersTotal
UM 11 24 21 25 81
USM 5 15 22 29 71
UKM 8 14 24 33 79
UPM 16 19 18 28 81
Total 40 72 85 115 312

It could be said that senior lecturers were seemingly more willing to answer the survey as compared to the other stratum of respondents. The data collected from the Senior Lecturer stratum far exceeded the desired sample. The key reason for this was because many of the potental respondents identfed from the Directory of Academic Profles (the directory used to sample the populaton) under the category of Lecturer in 2006-2007 had completed their Ph.D.s and at the tme of the survey were already designated as Senior Lecturers. Due to this also, collecton of data from the Lecturer category became less successful because the directory was not current and updated at the tme of the survey. It was fortunate that data from Professors and Associate Professors were able to be collected and the amount of data collected from these stratums was sufcient for further analysis. Based on the percentage of data collected against the desired size, it could be said that Associate Professors were more willing to answer the survey as compared to Professors. Overall, the fnal response rate of the survey was 85.9%.

Data Collecton Method

A survey method was chosen to collect data and a common questonnaire was administered to all respondents in the four public research universites. This study utlized a combinaton of self-administered survey and computer-assisted survey. A self-administered survey is a data collecton technique in which the respondent reads the survey questons and records his or her own answers without the presence of a trained interviewer (Hair et. al., 2000; Hair et. al., 2009). The direct mail survey was chosen for this approach. The questonnaire was mailed to a randomly sampled list of people from the Directory of Academic Profles who answered the questons and returned the completed surveys by mail.

Since the respondents were academicians, it was assumed that they were capable of understanding the questons without the help of interviewers or facilitators; therefore, the direct mail self-administered survey was considered a prudent and suitable method. To produce a high response rate, in additon to mailed surveys, the randomly selected list of people was sent an electronic survey via an electronic-mail where they were encouraged to answer the survey questons linked to a website. Once the respondents completed the survey, they submited via online and the data was captured in a repository.

The producton of the questonnaire involved designing and pilot testng. The design of the questonnaire involved both the adopton and modifcaton of existng instruments that had been developed by Ireland et. al. (2006b), Thornberry (2006) and Zahra (1996). The questonnaire was divided into two sectons namely Secton A and Secton B. Secton A consisted of questons which capture the demographic profle of the respondents. It comprised nine questons which captured the respondents’ background such as gender, age, race, working status, academic qualifcaton and academic designaton.

Secton B consisted of three parts which captured the organizatonal factors and academic entrepreneurship. Table 4 shows the variables, survey items and related hypotheses.

Table 4. Variables, Survey Items and Related Hypotheses
Variable NameSurvey ItemsRelated Hypothesis
Independent variable #1: Control systems Secton A, Part I: Questons 1 to 9 (measure extent of controls) H1
Independent variable #2: Organizatonal structure Secton A, Part I: Questons 10 to 18 (measure extent of organizatonal structure) H2
Independent variable #3: Human resource management systems Secton A, Part I: Questons 19 to 27 (measure extent of human resource management systems) H3
Independent variable #4: Organizatonal culture Secton A, Part I: Questons 28 to 36 (measure extent of culture) H4
Independent variable #5: Entrepreneurial leadership behavior Secton A, Part II: Questons 1 to 9 (measure degree of entrepreneurial leadership behavior) H5
Dependent variable: Academic entrepreneurship Secton A, Part III: Questons 1 to 21 (measure degree of academic entrepreneurship) H1; H2; H3; H4; H5

Part I, Secton B of the questonnaire adopted the items that measure specifc organizatonal variables in Ireland et. al.’s (2006b) Corporate Entrepreneurship Climate Instrument (CECI) which was an adaptaton from Hornsby et. al.’s (2002) measurement scale. Part II, Secton A of the questonnaire specifcally measured entrepreneurial leadership behavior in academic organizatons. The items in Secton II were adopted from Thornberry’s (2006) Entrepreneurial Leadership Questonnaire (ELQ). The Entrepreneurial Leadership Questonnaire maps fve dimensions of entrepreneurial leadership. This study adopted the dimension of general entrepreneurial leader behavior only. Further, the scale was modifed from a 5-point ratng scale that rates importance and frequency to a 5-point Likert scale that measures the degree of entrepreneurial leadership behavior.

Part III, Secton A of the questonnaire measures the level of academic entrepreneurship in university organizatons. The respondents were asked of their percepton on the extent their universites had undertaken such entrepreneurial actvites over the past three years. Secton III mapped three dimensions of academic entrepreneurship which are organizatonal innovaton, organizatonal creaton and organizatonal renewal. This study modifed Zahra’s (1996) measure of Corporate Entrepreneurship and revised the items to make it relevant and suitable to the context of university setng.

Secton I to III of the questonnaire consisted of items which were described in the form of statements that required the response in the form of Likert scales ranging from 1 to 5. This was to ensure consistency in using measurement scale. A score of 1 indicates ‘Strongly Disagree’, a score of 2 means ‘Disagree’, a score of 3 means ‘Neutral’, a 4 refers to ‘Agree’ while a score of 5 indicates ‘Strongly Agree’.

A set of the preliminary questonnaire was pilot tested during the period of August 2007 in order to establish that the variables ft into the framework, thereby, establishing validity and reliability. It was frst pre-tested and reviewed on the basis of grammar, syntax, spelling, integraton and comprehensibility by a professor in the Faculty of Business Administraton, Universit Tun Abdul Razak and a second review was made by a senior lecturer who taught the Research Methodology course at Universit Malaya.

The questonnaire was distributed at an internatonal conference in Subang Jaya, Selangor and an exhibiton which showcased inventons by Malaysian universites held in Kuala Lumpur. Later, it was also emailed to several academicians of two universites in Selangor. In the end, a total of 37 usable responses from academicians and researchers of several universites were collected. Table 5 demonstrates the internal reliability of the scales used in the survey instrument. The results of the reliability analysis for the variables measured through the survey instrument used in the pilot test formed the basis of a revised version which became the fnal questonnaire.

Table 5. Internal Reliability Score of the Scales Based on the Pilot Test
VariableReliability
Control Systems 0.639
Organizatonal Structure 0.472
Human Resource Management Systems 0.830
Organizatonal Culture 0.768
Entrepreneurial Leadership Behavior 0.861
Academic Entrepreneurship 0.952
Organizatonal Creaton 0.910
Organizatonal Innovaton 0.949
Organizatonal Renewal 0.764

Data analysis and key fndings

Demographic Profle of the Respondents

The demographic profle of the respondents in this study consisted of gender, age, race, working status, highest academic qualifcaton and current academic designaton.

Respondents were asked to provide their background informaton by answering multple-choice questons that were designed in the form of nominal scale and recoded into nominal values. A summary of the respondents’ demographic characteristcs is reported in Table 6.

Table 6. Demographic Characteristcs and Frequency Distributons of Sample
DemographicFrequency (N=312)Valid Percent (%)
Gender    
Male 173 55.4
Female 139 44.6
Age    
39 or below 147 47.1
40 to 44 69 22.1
45 to 49 40 12.9
50 or above 56 17.9
Race    
Malay 261 83.7
Chinese 28 8.9
Indian 14 4.5
Other 9 2.9
Working Status    
Permanent 264 84.6
Contract 38 12.2
Other 10 3.2
Highest Academic Qualifcaton    
PhD 204 65.4
Master 101 32.4
Other 7 2.2
Academic Designaton    
Professor 40 12.8
Associate Professor 72 23.1
Senior Lecturer 85 27.2
Lecturer 115 36.9

Descriptve Analysis of Measurement Scales

In this secton, the descriptve results of the measurement scale for each of the variables of the study are presented. Detailed descriptons of the items or questons, means, standard deviatons, skewness and kurtosis are reported in table form. In a quanttatve study, to test research hypotheses, normality testng is important, as violaton of this assumpton could invalidate statstcal hypothesis testng. The normality of variables can be tested by skewness and kurtosis (Hair et. al., 2000; Hair et. al., 2009).

With skewness and kurtosis values of less than 1.65 in all of the measurement items for all variables and dimensions, it can be considered that generally, the measurement items were normally distributed and any further treatments of the data, such as log-transformaton, were not required. The descriptve analysis in the ensuing sub-sectons is mainly based on the mean scores of each of the variables and items.

Control Systems

The scale of control systems consisted of 9 items reflectng the percepton of academicians of their university’s control on the budget and expense claims for research and development, the level of discreton in undertaking work, efciency versus effectveness in resource allocaton and whether people talk openly about improving operatons. Four of the items (CT1, CT2, CT3 and CT8) were reversecoded. The results of the descriptve analysis for control systems are shown in Table 7. Respondents were asked to provide answers for each item, measured by a fve-point Likert scale ranging from ‘1’ (‘strongly disagree’) to ‘5’ (‘strongly agree’).

From the mean scores, it seems, academicians in these four public research universites agreed that fnancial support for innovatve projects were readily available and accessible (M=3.91, SD=0.79), claims for expenses in doing R&D did not go through strict control process (M=3.72, SD=1.07), budgetary controls were perceived not to be tght (M=3.59, SD=1.00) and authority was allocated to each faculty, school or department (M=3.55, SD=0.87). In additon, they fairly agreed that they had a lot of discreton in how they did their jobs (M=3.44, SD=0.99) and felt trusted by the management when it came to using organizatonal resources (M=3.47, SD=0.97). Further, they were slightly uncertain about the revision that could be done afer budgets for R&D are accepted (M=3.17, SD=0.99) as well as to the effectveness of these universites in avoiding waste (M=3.02, SD=0.95).

The results of the mean scores for the control systems scale seem to indicate that academicians in these four public universites perceived their organizaton’s control systems to be flexible, convenient and accommodatve of their work and responsibilites. The results also demonstrate that academicians felt trusted and were given sufcient discretonary control. In favor of academic entrepreneurship, academicians perceived that there were available and accessible funding for innovatve and R&D projects. Nevertheless, it can be argued also that prudence and more effectve control measures need to be put in place to promote innovaton and academic entrepreneurship.

Table 7. Measures of Control Systems
 Scale Descriptons
ItemsMeanSDSkewnessKurtosis
In our university, ...    
CT1 … budgetary controls are tght.* 3.59 1.00 -0.63 -0.18
CT2 … claims for expenses in doing R&D go through strict control process.* 3.72 1.07 -0.83 0.03
CT3 … once budgets for R&D are accepted, they are difcult to revise.* 3.17 0.99 0.12 -0.93
CT4 … academicians have a lot of discreton in how they do their jobs. 3.44 0.99 -0.54 -0.24
CT5 … academicians feel trusted by the management when it comes to using organizatonal resources. 3.47 0.97 -0.63 -0.27
CT6 … the lines of command clearly allocate authority to each faculty/school or department. 3.55 0.87 -0.92 0.39
CT7 … there are several optons for individuals to get fnancial support for innovatve projects. 3.91 0.79 -0.95 1.39
CT8 … we are effectve in avoiding waste.* 3.02 0.95 -0.02 -0.72
CT9 to talk openly with others about ways to improve operatons. 3.18 1.02 -0.32 -0.65
Note: Responses to all items were on Likert scale ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5); *Item was reverse-coded.

Organizatonal Structure

Table 8 shows the results of the descriptve statstcs of organizatonal structure. A total of 9 items were measured by a fve-point Likert scale on agreement levels, similar to control systems. 5 of the items (ST2, ST4, ST6, ST7 and ST9) were reverse-coded. This measurement scale contains the explanaton of the academicians’ evaluatons of their universites’ organizatonal structures and whether they are flexible thereby facilitatng open communicaton flow, encourages entrepreneurship and experimentaton of new ideas.

Based on the results of mean scores, the respondents in this study expressed agreement that there were not many levels of management in their universites (M=3.96, SD=0.85) and that they were organized in a way that encouraged them to independently manage their research projects (M=3.71, SD=0.89). Further, the academicians perceived that the organizatonal structure was not clearly defned (M=3.64, SD=0.82), agreed that red-tape was not a problem (M=3.55, SD=1.04) and that administrators believed in delegatng decision-making responsibility (M=3.24, SD=0.9).

However, they were uncertain of the flexibility of the organizatonal structure (M=3.02, SD=0.93). The responses also indicated that the universites’ bureaucratc structure did not take away or hinder the ability to be entrepreneurial (M=3.45, SD=1.02) and did not limit the ability to experiment with new ideas (M=3.22, SD=1.01). Overall, the responses demonstrate that even though the organizatonal structure may not be truly accommodatve of entrepreneurship within the universites, it has not hindered or impeded the ability of these universites to be entrepreneurial and innovatve.

Table 8. Measures of Organizatonal Structure
 Scale Descriptons
ItemsMeanSDSkewnessKurtosis
In our university, ...    
ST1 … the organizatonal structure facilitates open communicaton flow. 3.28 0.97 -0.47 -0.42
ST2 … the bureaucratc structure takes away our ability to be entrepreneurial.* 3.45 1.02 -0.22 -0.67
ST3 … we are organized in a way that encourages us to independently manage our research projects. 3.71 0.89 -0.90 0.87
ST4 … there are many levels of management.* 3.96 0.85 -1.11 1.65
ST5 … the organizatonal structure is flexible. 3.02 0.93 -0.31 -0.37
ST6 … a rigid chain of command limits our ability to experiment with new ideas.* 3.22 1.01 -0.16 -0.73
ST7 … red-tape is a problem.* 3.55 1.04 -0.22 -0.94
ST8 … administrators believe in delegatng decision-making responsibility. 3.24 0.90 -0.55 -0.23
ST9 … the organizatonal structure is clearly defned.* 3.64 0.82 -1.11 1.53
Note: Responses to all items were on Likert scale ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5); *Item was reverse-coded.

Human Resource Management Systems

The human resource management systems scale was measured by 9 items that relate to issues such as incentves for innovaton, reward for taking calculated risks, job defniton, pursuance of multple career paths, development of creatve potental, evaluaton of innovatveness in performance appraisal, concern with process versus performance, balance between individual incentves and team incentves and job promoton based on innovatveness. Similar to the two preceding scales, respondents of this study were asked to indicate their level of agreement, ranging from 1 to 5 on the prescribed issues. Prior to analysis, item HR7 was reverse-coded.

As presented in Table 9, academicians in these four public research universites tended to agree that they could not get ahead if they did not innovate (M=3.43, SD=1.00). In additon, they tended to perceive that their creatve potental was developed (M=3.31, SD=1.02) and given considerable discreton in how they performed their tasks (M=3.3, SD=0.85). The respondents seemed to agree that in their universites, there was more concern with performance than with process (M=3.29, SD=0.99). Hence, in relaton to this, they tended to agree that innovaton was highly incentvized (M=3.25, SD=1.04) and annual performance appraisals included an evaluaton of their innovatveness (M=3.2, SD=1.04). Interestngly, there seemed to be moderate agreement that academicians could pursue multple career paths (M=3.16, SD=1.03).

However, they felt uncertain on whether their universites rewarded academicians who take calculated risks (M=3.04, SD=1.01) and whether there was balance between incentves for individual initatve and incentves for team collaboraton (M=3.08, SD=0.92). These results imply that the respondents did perceive their universites’ human resource management systems to be encouraging innovaton. However, risk-taking which is an important element of entrepreneurship was not seen to be adequately encouraged. As entrepreneurship is also built on teamwork, team collaboraton needs to be equitably incentvized as well.

Table 9. Measures of Human Resource Management Systems
 Scale Descriptons
ItemsMeanSDSkewnessKurtosis
In our university, ...    
HR1 … incentves for innovaton are high. 3.25 1.04 -0.47 -0.66
HR2 … academicians who take calculated risks are rewarded. 3.04 1.01 -0.09 -0.54
HR3 … jobs tend to be broadly defned with considerable discreton in how tasks are performed. 3.30 0.85 -0.72 0.36
HR4 … academicians can pursue multple career paths. 3.16 1.03 -0.26 -0.76
HR5 … the creatve potental of academicians is developed. 3.31 1.02 -0.63 -0.25
HR6 … annual performance appraisals include an evaluaton of employee innovatveness. 3.20 1.04 -0.34 -0.55
HR7 … there is more concern with process than with performance.* 3.29 0.99 -0.20 -0.63
HR8 … there is balance between incentves for individual initatve and incentves for team collaboraton. 3.08 0.92 -0.34 -0.46
HR9 … if you are not innovatng on the job, you cannot get ahead. 3.43 1.00 -0.52 -0.19
Note: Responses to all items were on Likert scale ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5); *Item was reverse-coded.

Culture

The descriptve statstcs regarding the universites’ culture in promotng innovaton and entrepreneurship is reported in Table 10. A total of 9 items was measured by a fve-point Likert scale examining agreement with various elements of culture related to idea generaton, rewarding tested ideas, celebraton of innovatve achievements, encouraging failure, a sense of urgency on the importance of innovaton, risk-taking value, decision making on new ideas and support for experimental projects which may fail. Item CU5 was reverse-coded.

From the results of the means scores, there seemed to be an agreement that these universites celebrated innovatve achievements (M=3.54, SD=1.00) and they had a sense of urgency regarding the importance of innovaton (M=3.42, SD=0.98). This is in line with the characteristcs of research universites. However, the respondents were slightly uncertain about whether their universites’ culture encouraged failure (M=3.27, SD=0.89), whether small experimental projects would be supported even though some of them might eventually fail (M=3.26, SD=0.86), whether risk-taking was a core value (M=3.19, SD=0.9) and whether they had a culture that rewarded tested ideas (M=3.11, SD=0.92).

On the other hand, the respondents seemed to disagree that an employee with a good idea was given free tme to develop that idea (M=2.91, SD=1.02) and that employees had a lot of say in how things were done (M=2.84, SD=0.97). These results tend to suggest that even though innovaton was encouraged and required among the employees, values, mindsets, behaviors and mechanisms that were needed to support and cultvate entrepreneurship had yet to be inculcated and embodied in the organizatons’ culture.

Table 10. Measures of Organizatonal Culture
 Scale Descriptons
ItemsMeanSDSkewnessKurtosis
In our university, ...    
CU1 … an employee with a good idea is given free tme to develop that idea. 2.91 1.02 -0.10 -0.81
CU2 … employees have a lot of say in how things are done. 2.84 0.97 0.03 -0.85
CU3 … ours is a culture that rewards tested ideas. 3.11 0.92 -0.30 -0.51
CU4 … we celebrate innovatve achievements. 3.54 1.00 -0.48 -0.50
CU5 … we have a culture that discourages failure.* 3.27 0.89 -0.36 0.06
CU6 … there is a sense of urgency regarding the importance of innovaton. 3.42 0.98 -0.50 -0.22
CU7 … risk-taking is a core value. 3.19 0.90 -0.18 -0.26
CU8 …new ideas tend to receive quick go/no go decisions from the management. 3.07 0.82 -0.07 -0.50
CU9 supported even though some of them may eventually fail. 3.26 0.86 -0.40 -0.17
Note: Responses to all items were on Likert scale ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5); *Item was reverse-coded.

Entrepreneurial Leadership Behavior

In Table 11, the results of the descriptve analysis of the entrepreneurial leadership behavior variable are presented. A total of 9 items were adopted from Thornberry’s (2006) General Entrepreneurial Leadership scale to measure the percepton of entrepreneurial leadership behavior among academic leaders at various levels in the four designated public research universites. Respondents were asked to indicate their agreement with each item, measured by a fve-point Likert scale.

Low to moderate mean scores seems to indicate that respondents were quite uncertain about the level of entrepreneurial leadership behavior among their universites’ academic leaders. Among the items with moderate mean scores include the willingness of academic leaders to move ahead with a promising new approach when others might hold back (M=3.3, SD=0.92), the willingness of academic leaders to listen to suggestons from others about how to do things differently (M=3.27, SD=1.05), the ability to quickly utlize different approaches to overcome obstacles when the inital approach did not work (M=3.21, SD=0.93) and to get things done even if it meant going around the system (M=3.17, SD=0.93).

In additon, the items with low mean scores seem to be related to two characteristcs i.e. work environment and entrepreneurial behavior, and, behavior in confrontng bureaucracy. For the former, the respondents were highly uncertain on whether academic leaders promoted an environment that encouraged risk-taking (M=3.07, SD=0.92) and whether academic leaders demonstrated entrepreneurial orientaton at work (M=3.06, SD=0.89). For the later, the results seem to show that respondents were highly uncertain on whether academic leaders encouraged the bending of rules when the rules got in the way of achieving strategic initatves (M=3.09, SD=0.88), whether academic leaders encouraged others to outwit bureaucracy (M=2.86, SD=0.95) and whether they actvely fought encroachment of bureaucracy in the university (M=2.76, SD=0.89). For the last two items, the results also show higher responses of disagreement. These fndings would possibly mean that entrepreneurial leadership was not a strong characteristc for academic leaders in Malaysian public research universites.

Table 11. Measures of Entrepreneurial Leadership Behaviour
 Scale Descriptons
ItemsMeanSDSkewnessKurtosis
In general, academic leaders at various levels of the university...    
LB1 … encourage the bending of rules when they get in the way of achieving strategic initatves. 3.09 0.88 -0.17 -0.38
LB2 … get things done even if it means going around the system. 3.17 0.93 -0.41 -0.66
LB3 … willingly move ahead with a promising new approach when others might hold back. 3.30 0.92 -0.47 -0.35
LB4 …promote an environment where risktaking is encouraged. 3.07 0.92 -0.13 -0.58
LB5 … encourage others to outwit bureaucracy. 2.86 0.95 0.08 -0.34
LB6 overcoming obstacles when the inital one does not work. 3.21 0.93 -0.41 -0.53
LB7 … demonstrate an entrepreneurial orientaton at work. 3.06 0.89 -0.33 -0.58
LB8 … actvely fght the encroachment of bureaucracy in the university. 2.76 0.89 -0.14 -0.50
LB9 … willingly listen to suggestons from others about how to do things differently. 3.27 1.05 -0.52 -0.46
Note: Responses to all items were on Likert scale ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5)

Organizatonal Innovaton

Table 12 shows the results of the descriptve statstcs for the organizatonal innovaton dimension of academic entrepreneurship. The measurement scale for organizatonal innovaton, adapted from Zahra’s (1996) ‘Corporate Entrepreneurship’ scale, contained seven items. Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement based on a fve-point Likert scale.

Of all the items, the item with the highest mean score demonstrated that majority of the respondents agreed their universites had spent heavily on R&D (M=3.81, SD=0.9). In additon, they somewhat agreed that they had increased the amount of knowledge transfers to the industry through R&D (M=3.47, SD=0.92), had pioneered the development of breakthrough scientfc research for local economic developments (M=3.46, SD=0.93), had introduced a large number of new inventons to the market (M=3.38, SD=1.05) and their universites had maintained world-class R&D facilites (M=3.34, SD=1.03). However, despite their agreement to the above 5 items, they seemed to be slightly uncertain about whether they had been successful (compared to other universites) in commercializing inventons (M=3.26, SD=0.93) and whether they had acquired more patents than other universites (M=3.23, SD=0.97).

Hence, it can be said that most of the efforts relatng to innovaton at these four public research universites had been focused on research and producing inventons for the industry and local development, however, there was uncertainty or that less effort and emphasis was put on the process of commercializing the research and inventons. It also seems that competton between the universites had been on the amount of research and inventons rather than the extent these research and inventons had been patented or commercialized.

Table 12. Measures of Organizatonal Innovaton
 Scale Descriptons
ItemsMeanSDSkewnessKurtosis
Over the past three years, our university...    
EI1 … has spent heavily (compared to other universites) on R&D. 3.81 0.90 -0.90 0.97
EI2 … has maintained world-class R&D facilites. 3.34 1.03 -0.29 -0.61
EI3 … has introduced a large number of new inventons to the market. 3.38 1.05 -0.38 -0.44
EI4 … has acquired more patents than other universites. 3.23 0.97 -0.05 -0.13
EI5 … has pioneered the development of breakthrough scientfc research for local economic development. 3.46 0.93 -0.55 0.18
EI6 … has been successful (compared to other universites) in commercializing inventons. 3.26 0.93 -0.40 0.20
EI7 … has increased the amount of knowledge transfers to the industry through R&D. 3.47 0.92 -0.55 0.09
Note: Responses to all items were on Likert scale ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5)

Organizatonal Creato

Descriptve statstcs for the organizatonal creaton dimension of academic entrepreneurship are reported in Table 13. A measurement scale comprised of 7 items adapted from Zahra’s (1996) ‘Corporate Entrepreneurship’ scale was used. Similar to the measurement scale for organizatonal innovaton, respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with each item on a fve-point Likert scale.

As shown in Table 13, the mean scores of the measurement items were between 3.11 and 3.54. The majority of respondents in this study indicated their moderate agreement with the statement that their universites had received sponsorship from the industry to establish applied research centers to promote new venture creaton (M=3.54, SD=0.91), had undertaken internal venture development through contract research with the industry (M=3.53, SD=0.84) and had expanded its internatonal operatons through strategic alliances (M=3.41, SD=0.99).

However, the respondents were slightly uncertain on whether their universites were more focused on improving operatons as compared to being involved in commercializaton actvites (M=3.36, SD=0.83). Likewise, they were slightly uncertain to whether their universites had entered new industries through equity involvement in university start-up companies (M=3.14, SD=0.87) and as to whether their universites had established start-up companies through industrial linkages (M=3.11, SD=0.94).

Hence, the results seem to reveal that organizatonal creaton in the form of new venture creaton or start-up companies occurs through research centers which were supported by industry sponsorship or industry collaboraton via contract research. It also seems to show that academicians in these public universites were less inclined to start or create new ventures or start-up companies on their own. It is also possible that academicians did not feel compelled or encouraged to start their own ventures or start-up companies by their universites.

Table 13. Measures of Organizatonal Creaton
 Scale Descriptons
ItemsMeanSDSkewnessKurtosis
Over the past three years, our university...    
EC1 … has entered new industries through equity involvement in university startup companies. 3.14 0.87 -0.12 0.11
EC2 … has expanded its internatonal operatons through strategic alliances. 3.41 0.99 -0.55 -0.07
EC3 development through contract research with the industry. 3.53 0.84 -0.83 0.94
EC4 … has received sponsorship from the industry to establish applied research centers to promote new venture creaton. 3.54 0.91 -0.56 0.15
EC5 entrepreneurial frms from internal research groups. 3.20 0.91 -0.35 -0.25
EC6 … has established startup companies through industrial linkages. 3.11 0.94 -0.33 -0.27
EC7 … seems to focus on improving the performance of its operaton, rather than being involved in commercializaton actvites.* 3.36 0.83 -0.52 0.68
Note: Responses to all items were on Likert scale ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5); *Item was reverse-coded.

Organizatonal Renewal

Table 14 shows the results of the descriptve analysis for organizatonal renewal, the third dimension of academic entrepreneurship. The measurement scale for organizatonal renewal was also adapted from Zahra’s (1996) ‘Corporate Entrepreneurship’ scale and it contained seven items. Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement based on a fve-point Likert scale.

Of all the items, the item with the highest mean score demonstrated that majority of the respondents agreed their universites had initated several programs to improve the productvity of facultes/schools or departments (M=3.71, SD=0.82). In additon, they somewhat agreed that their universites had reorganized operatons to ensure coordinaton among facultes/schools and departments (M=3.46, SD=0.0.87), seemed to have expanded their mission to include economic enterprising in additon to teaching and research (M=3.45, SD=0.92), had changed the compettve approach (strategy) for each faculty/school or department (M=3.44, SD=0.78), had established technology transfer schemes to facilitate researchers in commercializing research (M=3.43, SD=0.91) and had established technology transfer ofces to market facultes’ inventons (M=3.39, SD=0.98). The respondents somewhat disagreed that their universites had maintained several unproftable facultes/ schools or departments because of public interests (M=3.39, SD=0.88)

Thus, it can be said that the respondents were aware of the on-going process of transformaton for their public research universites but the mean scores somehow also indicate that the process of change had not reached the desired level set by the government and the university’s management. Organizatonal renewal or transformaton initatves may take some tme to bear fruits especially in the case of academic entrepreneurship which is an emerging process. Nevertheless, it was good to fnd, from these results, that these universites had actually geared up on the renewal process.

Table 14. Measures of Organizatonal Renewal
 Scale Descriptons
ItemsMeanSDSkewnessKurtosis
Over the past three years, our university...    
ER1 … has maintained several unproftable facultes/ schools or departments because of public interests.* 3.39 0.88 -0.39 -0.00
ER2 … has changed the compettve approach (strategy) for each faculty/school or department. 3.44 0.78 -0.74 0.61
ER3 … has initated several programs to improve the productvity of facultes/schools or departments. 3.71 0.82 -1.11 1.54
ER4 … has reorganized operatons to ensure increased coordinaton among facultes/schools and departments. 3.46 0.87 -0.71 0.06
ER5 … has established technology transfer schemes to facilitate researchers in commercializing research. 3.43 0.91 -0.48 -0.12
ER6 … has established technology transfer ofces to market facultes’ inventons. 3.39 0.98 -0.47 -0.02
ER7 … seems to have expanded its mission to include economic enterprising in additon to teaching and research. 3.45 0.92 -0.60 0.05
Note: Responses to all items were on Likert scale ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5)

Reliability Analysis

Table 15 presents the inital reliability examinaton of the measurement scales. The Cronbach’s alpha coefcients were calculated in SPSS 18. The academic entrepreneurship scale shows the highest alpha value at 0.95, while the control systems scale indicates the lowest alpha value at 0.68. Since the Cronbach’s alpha values are shown to be 0.68 or above, the variables deployed in this study showed a high degree of internal consistency, thus, meetng the reliability assessment.

In total, 14 items were deleted from the scales of control systems (3 items), organizatonal structure (4 items), human resource management systems (2 items), culture (2 items) and academic entrepreneurship (3 items; 1 item from each dimension). The item deleton process was performed in order to increase the alpha value. Items were removed from the scale one at a tme when the “Cronbach’s Alpha if Item Deleted” column showed that overall reliability could be increased. Upon removing these items and reliability coefcient recalculated, Cronbach alpha values rose to the values shown in Table 15.

Table 15.
VARIABLESCRONBACH ALPHA
CONTROL SYSTEMS 0.680
STRUCTURE 0.744
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 0.835
CULTURE 0.810
ENTREPRENEURIAL LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOUR 0.881
ACAD ACADEMIC ENTREPRENEURSHIP 0.952

Simple Linear Regression (SLR) Analysis

The SLR analysis conducted to test fve hypotheses found that each independent variable positvely and signifcantly influences the level of academic entrepreneurship in the four public research universites. These fndings support fndings of previous studies that reiterated on the influence of the internal environment on the level of academic entrepreneurship in academic organizatons (Etzkowitz, 2003; Brennan et. al., 2005; Brennan and McGowan, 2006; Llano, 2006; Bercovitz and Feldman, 2008, Clarysse, 2011).

However, the relatonship between each organizatonal factor and academic entrepreneurship was not strong. The Adjusted R Square scores indicated in Table 16 show moderate to strong relatonship between human resource management systems and organizatonal culture with academic entrepreneurship, moderate relatonship between control systems with academic entrepreneurship, and, low relatonship between organizatonal structure and entrepreneurial leadership behavior with academic entrepreneurship.

Table 16. Statement of Hypotheses and Adjusted R Square Scores of Simple Linear Regression Analysis
HypothesesResultsAdjusted R Square
H1 Control systems which are perceived to support entrepreneurial actvites are positvely related to the level of academic entrepreneurship in the university Supported*** 0.329
H2 An organizatonal structure which is perceived to facilitate entrepreneurial development is positvely related to the level of academic entrepreneurship in the university Supported*** 0.281
H3 Human resource management systems which are perceived to encourage entrepreneurial behaviors are positvely related to the level of academic entrepreneurship in the university Supported*** 0.400
H4 An organizatonal culture which is perceived to nurture entrepreneurial behaviors is positvely related to the level of academic entrepreneurship in the university Supported*** 0.420
H5 The entrepreneurial behavior of academic leaders in the university signifcantly influences the level of academic entrepreneurship in the university Supported*** 0.295
Note: ***p<0.001

Hence, the results suggest that to increase the level of academic entrepreneurship, these public research universites need to improve and design their control systems, organizatonal structure, human resource management systems and organizatonal culture to be able to further stmulate, support, facilitate, nurture and cultvate more entrepreneurial actvites among their academicians. In additon, academicians and academic leaders at every level of the university need to behave more entrepreneurially.

Multple Linear Regression (MLR) Analysis

MLR analysis was conducted to investgate the associaton between the identfed internal factors and level of academic entrepreneurship in public research universites in Malaysia. Tables 17 and 18 below provide the results of the MLR analysis for fve internal factors. Based on the results in Tables 17 and 18, the overall MLR model with the selected fve predictors has worked well in explaining the variaton in the level of academic entrepreneurship in these public research universites (F = 70.988; df = 5,306; p = 0.0001).

From Table 18, control systems were found to exert a signifcant positve influence on academic entrepreneurship (t = 4.789; p = 0.0001; b = +0.920). Further, human resource management systems was found to exert a signifcant positve influence on academic entrepreneurship (t = 4.179; p = 0.0001; b = +0.655). In additon, organizatonal culture was also found to signifcantly and positvely influence academic entrepreneurship (t = 3.610; p = 0.0001; b = +0.629). As for entrepreneurial leadership behavior, it was also found to contribute signifcantly and positvely to academic entrepreneurship (t = 3.190; p = 0.002; b = +0.339). However, organizatonal structure was found to be an insignifcant predictor of academic entrepreneurship (t = -0.569; p = 0.570; b = -0.134).

Hence, the estmated regression equaton is as follows:-

Academic Entrepreneurship = 6.331 + 0.92 Control Systems + 0.655 Human Resource Management Systems + 0.629 Organizatonal Culture + 0.339 Entrepreneurial Leadership Behavior

Table 17. MLR Results for Internal Factors as Predictors of Academic Entrepreneurship
ModelSum of SquaresdfMean SquareFpR Square
Regression 25312.686 5 5062.537 70.988 0.0001 0.537
Residual 21822.382 306 71.315      
Total 47135.068 311        
a Predictors: (Constant), Control Systems (CT), Human Resource Management Systems (HR), Culture (CU), Organizatonal Structure (ST), Entrepreneurial Leadership Behavior (LB)
b Dependent Variable: Academic Entrepreneurship
Table 18.
Terms in the EquatonNonstandardized Coefcients BStd. ErrorStandardized Coefcients BetaTSig.
(Constant) 6.331 3.143   2.014 0.045
CT 0.920 0.192 0.260 4.789 0.000
HR 0.655 0.157 0.261 4.179 0.000
CU 0.629 0.174 0.232 3.610 0.000
ST -0.134 0.235 -0.035 -0.569 0.570
LB 0.339 0.106 0.165 3.190 0.002
A Dependent Variable: Academic Entrepreneurship

The proporton of explained variance as measured by R Square for the above regression equaton is 0.537. In other words, 53.7 per cent of the variaton in academic entrepreneurship was explained by control systems, human resource management systems, organizatonal culture and entrepreneurial leadership behavior. The beta values shown in Table 18 seem to indicate human resource management systems as the most important predictor of academic entrepreneurship (Beta = 0.261), secondly is control systems (Beta = 0.260), while organizatonal culture is the third key predictor (Beta = 0.232). And, the fourth important predictor of academic entrepreneurship is entrepreneurial leadership behavior (Beta = 0.165).

Discussion

Based on the fndings derived from the hypotheses testng, descriptve analyses and regression analyses, the research provided evidence of the appropriateness of using the organizatonal framework of academic entrepreneurship to measure the influence of the internal environment in stmulatng the level of academic entrepreneurship in Malaysian public research universites. As evidenced from previous studies on academic entrepreneurship, organizatonal factors contribute signifcantly in enabling and stmulatng the level of academic entrepreneurship in academic organisatons (Etzkowitz, 2003; Bercovitz and Feldman, 2008; Brennan et. al., 2005; Brennan and McGowan, 2006; Llano, 2006, Clarysse, 2011). The results are in line with the overall fndings across several studies in the area of entrepreneurial university, academic entrepreneurship and university-industry technology transfer (Etzkowitz and Klofsten, 2005; Kirby, 2006; Rothaermel et. al., 2007).

The below model in Figure 3 is generated based on the MLR analysis. The analysis found four internal factors i.e. human resource management systems, control systems, organizatonal culture and entrepreneurial leadership behavior as signifcant predictors of the level of academic entrepreneurship in public research universites in Malaysia. It was also found that organizatonal structure as an insignifcant predictor of academic entrepreneurship.

The results reinforced organizatonal culture and human resource management systems as key predictors of academic entrepreneurship. Interestngly, in the context of Malaysian public research universites, control systems emerged as a signifcant predictor of academic entrepreneurship in the internal environment. In additon, the study included entrepreneurial leadership behaviour as an organizatonal factor in the research model and proved that it was also a factor that positvely and signifcantly influences the level of academic entrepreneurship.

Figure 3. Organisatonal Model of Academic Entrepreneurship based on the Combined Effects of all Organisatonal Factors

There are several limitatons to the research. Firstly, the context of the study was the four designated namely UM, USM, UKM and UPM. These universites were designated as research universites in 2006, at the incepton of this research. During the Ninth Malaysian Plan 2006-2010 period, USM was accorded the frst Accelerated Programme for Excellence (APEX) University in Malaysia. Under the Tenth Malaysian Plan 2011-2015, these four public research universites retained their status as research universites and Universit Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) was designated as the ffh public research university in Malaysia (EPU, 2006; EPU, 2010). However, UTM was not included in this study because it was only recently that it was designated as a research university by the Malaysian Government.

Secondly, the data for the research was collected from the Directory of Academic Profles which was established by the Ministry of Higher Educaton, Malaysia. The directory provided informaton on academicians comprising their brief personal data, areas of specializaton and research contributons. This directory provided a list of potental sampling units that represented an acceptable frame of the defned target populaton elements which were academicians who would be involved in research actvites and academic entrepreneurship. However, there was a possibility that informaton in the directory had not been contnuously updated.

Thirdly, the current investgaton was restricted to the context of public research universites; therefore, the generalisaton of fndings is limited by the characteristcs of this specifc context. These universites had been long established and were the four biggest universites in Malaysia. Therefore, they were different in terms of size, track record, policy and directons as compared to other universites. It was also viewed that they were more inclined towards academic entrepreneurship as compared to other universites which were deemed to be teaching universites. Thus, generalisatons of the fndings beyond public research universites such as to public teaching universites, government research insttutes and private universites must be cautously inferred.

Fourthly, the research design for this quanttatve study was cross-sectonal, whereby all the variables incorporated in the hypothesised model were assessed at a single point in tme; hence, no defnite conclusions can be drawn concerning the causality of relatonships among variables. Therefore, future research via a longitudinal study would provide further signifcant contributons to knowledge.

Conclusion

Litle has been said on the influence of the internal and organizatonal context of the university on academic entrepreneurship in the literature. There were some studies on the impact of one or two organizatonal antecedents on university technology transfer. This study brought the elements of university’s internal environment comprising of structure, control systems, human resource management systems, culture and entrepreneurial leadership behavior in a single study. Previous research has either studied a specifc relatonship between a single organizatonal antecedent and entrepreneurial actvity or connected two or more of them together with entrepreneurial actvity.

The study provided compelling evidence of the appropriateness of using the organizatonal framework of academic entrepreneurship to measure the influence of the internal environment in stmulatng the level of academic entrepreneurship in Malaysian public research universites. It has contributed in developing a theory and organizatonal model of academic entrepreneurship. As a result, we know more about what kind of entrepreneurship is likely under various structures, control systems, human resource management systems, organizatonal culture and entrepreneurial leadership behavior. Further, this study’s organisatonal framework of academic entrepreneurship has extended the study on the integratve view based on corporate entrepreneurship perspectve where academic entrepreneurship encompasses organizatonal creaton, innovaton and strategic renewal which occurs inside and outside the university.

References

  • Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2008). Academic entrepreneurs: Organizatonal change at the individual level. Organizaton Science, 19(1), 69-89.
  • Brennan, M.C., Wall, A.P., & McGowan, P. (2005). Academic entrepreneurship: Assessing preferences in nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 12(3), 307-322.
  • Brennan, M.C., & McGowan, P. (2006). Academic entrepreneurship: An exploratory case study. Internatonal Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 12(3), 144-164.
  • Busenitz, L.W., West, III, G.P., Shepherd, D., Nelson, T., Chandler, G.N., & Zacharakis, A. (2003). Entrepreneurship research in emergence: Past trends and future directons. Journal of Management, 29(3), 285-308.
  • Bygrave, W.D. (1989). The entrepreneurship paradigm: A philosophical look at its research methodologies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practce, 14(1), 7-26.
  • Chrisman, J.J., Hynes, T., & Fraser, S. (1995). Faculty entrepreneurship and economic development: The case of the University of Calgary. Journal Business Venturing, 10(4), 267-281.
  • Clarysse, B., Tartari, V., & Salter, A. (2011). The impact of entrepreneurial capacity, experience and organizatonal support on academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, available online 29 June 2011.
  • EPU 2006. Ninth Malaysian Plan 2006–2010. Putrajaya: The Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister’s Department.
  • EPU 2010. Tenth Malaysian Plan 2011–2015. Putrajaya: The Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister’s Department.
  • Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Research groups as ‘quasi-frms’: The inventon of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy, 32, 109-121.
  • Etzkowitz, H., & Klofsten, M. (2005). The innovatng region: Toward a theory of knowledge-based regional development. R & D Management, 35(3), 243-255.
  • Gregoire, D.A., Noel, M.X., Dery, R., & Bechard, J. (2006). Is there conceptual convergence in entrepreneurship research? A co-citaton analysis of Fronters of Entrepreneurship Research, 1981-2004. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practce, 30(3), 333-373.
  • Hair, J.F., Jr., Bush, R.P., & Ortnau, D.J. (2000). Marketng research: A practcal approach for the new millennium. Boston: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
  • Hair, J.F., Jr., Bush, R.P., & Ortnau, D.J. (2009). Marketng research: In a digital informaton environment. Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
  • Hornsby, J.S., Kuratko, D.F., & Zahra, S.A. (2002). Middle managers’ percepton of the internal environment for corporate entrepreneurship: Assessing a measurement scale, Journal of Business Venturing, 17(3), 253-273. Ireland, R.D., Kuratko, D.F., & Morris, M.H. (2006a). A health audit for corporate entrepreneurship: Innovaton at all levels, part I. Journal of Business Strategy, 27(1), 10-17.
  • Ireland, R.D., Kuratko, D.F., & Morris, M.H. (2006b). A health audit for corporate entrepreneurship: Innovaton at all levels, part II. Journal of Business Strategy, 27(2), 21-30.
  • Kirby, D.A. (2006). Creatng entrepreneurial universites in the UK: Applying entrepreneurship theory to practce. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(5), 599-603.
  • Kuratko, D.F., & Hornsby, J.S. (1998). Corporate entrepreneurial leadership for the 21st century. Journal of Leadership and Organizatonal Studies, 5(2), 27-39.
  • Llano, J.A. (2006). The university environment and academic entrepreneurship: A behavioral model for measuring environment success. Technology Transfer Society Conference, Georgia Tech, Atlanta, USA, September 27-29.
  • Meyer, G.D., Neck, H.M., & Meeks, M.D. (2002). The entrepreneurship-strategic management interface. In M.A. Hit, R.D. Ireland, S.M. Camp & D.L. Sexton (Eds), Strategic entrepreneurship: Creatng a new mindset (pp. 19-38). Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
  • Morris, M.H., Kuratko, D.F., &Covin, J.G. (2008). Corporate entrepreneurship and innovaton (2nd editon).Thomson South-Western.
  • O’Shea, R.P., Allen, T.J., O’Gorman, C., & Roche, F. (2004). Universites technology transfer: A review of academic entrepreneurship literature. Irish Journal of Management, 25(2), 11-29.
  • Powers, J.B., & McDougall, P.P. (2005). Universites start-up formaton and technology licensing with frms that go public: A resource-based view of academic entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(3), 291-311.
  • Sadler, R. (2001). A framework for the emergence of entrepreneurship and innovaton in educaton, Conference paper for the Centre for the Economics of Educaton and Training. Retrieved June 20, 2007 from htp://www.educaton.monash.edu.au/ centres/ceet/ docs/conferencepapers/2001confpapersadler.pdf
  • Schildt, H.A., Zahra, S.A., &Silanpaa, A. (2006). Scholarly communites in entrepreneurship research: A co-citaton analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practce, 30(3), 399-415.
  • Schneider, B. (1975). Organizatonal climate: An essay. Personnel Psychology 28, 447- 479.
  • Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a feld of research. Academy of Management Review, 25, 217-226.
  • Stevenson, H.H., & Jarillo, J.C. (1990). A paradigm of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial management. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 17-27.
  • Röpke, J. (1998). The entrepreneurial university, innovaton, academic knowledge creaton and regional development in a globalized economy. Working paper Department of Economics, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Germany, 15. Retrieved February 25 February, 2007 from htp://www.wiwi.uni-marburg.de/Lehrstuehle/ VWL/Witheo3/documents/entreuni.pdf.
  • Rothaermel, F.T., Agung, S.D., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691-791.
  • Sharma, P., & Chrisman, J.J. (1999). Towards a reconciliaton of the defnitonal issues in the feld of corporate entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practce, 23(3), 11-27.
  • Thornberry, N. (2006). Lead like an Entrepreneur, New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Victor, B., & Cullen, J.B. (1988). The organizatonal bases of ethical work climates. Administratve Science Quarterly, 33, 101-125.
  • Wood, M.S. (2011). A process model of academic entrepreneurship. Business Horizons, 54(2), 153-161.
  • Yusof, M., Siddiq, M.S., & Mohd Nor, L. (2009). An integrated model of a university’s entrepreneurial ecosystem. Journal of Asia Entrepreneurship and Sustainability, 5(1), 57-77.
  • Yusof, M., Mohd Nor, L., & Siddiq, M.S. (2010). Organizatonal antecedents of academic entrepreneurship in Malaysian public research universites. Asia Pacifc Journal of Innovaton and Entrepreneurship, 4(3), 43-68.
  • Yusof, M., & Jain, K.K. (2010). Categories of university-level entrepreneurship: A literature survey, The Internatonal Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 6 (1), 81-96.
  • Zahra, S.A. (1996). Governance, ownership and corporate entrepreneurship: The moderatng impact of industry technological opportunites. Academy of Management Journal, 39(6), 1713-1735.