INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Responsible Leadership and Intrapreneurship Behaviour at Guinness

Ghana Ltd: The Mediating Role of Supervisor-Provided Resources

Archimedes Oduro

University of Cape Coast

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.91100164

Received: 22 November 2025; Accepted: 27 November 2025; Published: 03 December 2025

ABSTRACT

The study examined role of supervisor-provided resources in the responsible leadership and the intrapreneurial

behaviour nexus at the Guinness Ghana Ltd. Specifically, four research objectives were investigated; to examine

the influence of responsible leadership on intrapreneurial behaviour; to analyse the influence of responsible

leadership on supervisor-provided resources; to examine the influence of supervisor-provided resources on the

intrapreneurial behaviour of employees; and to analyse the mediating role of supervisor- provided resources in

the relationship between responsible leadership and intrapreneurial behaviour. The study relied on the

quantitative approach and explanatory-correlational design. A structured questionnaire was used to gather data

from a sample response of 360 respondents in the organisation. The data was then processed using the IBM

SPSS Statistics (version 25) and analysed using partial least square structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM).

The study found that responsible leadership has a significant positive influence on intrapreneurial behaviour and

supervisor-provided resources. The study also found that supervisor-provided resource has a significant positive

influence on intrapreneurial behaviour of the employees at the Guinness Ghana Ltd. The findings further showed

that supervisor-provided resource mediates the nexus between responsible leadership and intrapreneurial

behaviour. The study, therefore, recommended that responsible leadership traits of the supervisors or leaders in

their organisations should be developed through seminars, conferences, meetings, and training workshops to

promote the intrapreneurship traits of the employees.

INTRODUCTION

Background to the Study

In order to thrive, organizations must evolve and, for this purpose, it is essential for the members of the

organisation to become involved. In this sense, employees’ extra-role behavior, that is, their positive and

voluntary behaviors, which are not prescribed or formally rewarded by the organization, have been shown to

contribute positively to this end (Zhao, Yan & Keh, 2018). One type of extra-role behavior that stimulates

organisational development and evolution is employees’ voluntary intrapreneurial behavior (Amankwaa,

Gyensare & Susomrith, 2019; Stull & Singh, 2005). Intrapreneurial behaviors (hereafter, IB) are employee

behaviours by which, without having been requested to do so, employees innovate and seek business

opportunities to benefit the organization (Valsania, Moriano & Molero, 2016; Antoncic & Hisrich, 2001). The

concept of intrapreneurship is seen as a psychological assessment of individual behavior (Moriano et al., 2011).

Thus, in this case, intrapreneurship is a bottom-up, proactive, risk-taking and innovative initiative of individual

employees.

Several studies have shown that this type of behavior is positively associated with organizational performance

and efficacy and may be the only sustainable resource that can develop a long-term competitive advantage by

stimulating learning as a way to generate differentiation and growth (Bushra, Ahmad & Naveed, 2011; Antoncic

& Hisrich 2001; Benitez et al., 2010; Dess et al., 2003). However, even though an intrapreneurial project may

bare high potential for the company as a whole, “the decision to opt for intrapreneurship remains an individual

and personal decision as this is unlikely to be a part of a standard job description” (Rigtering & Weitzel, 2013,

p. 8). Thus, in view of their high strategic value, it is very relevant to identify the variables that facilitate such

employee behaviours (Miller, 2011).

Page 2044

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

The scientific literature shows that leaders can improve employees’ performance and motivate them to

achievements reaching beyond the scope of their obligations (Knies & Leisink, 2013; Avolio et al., 2009). In the

same direction, various studies have shown that leadership is one of the variables with the greatest impact on the

development of IB (Alambeigi et al., 2012; Moriano et al., 2011). One of the models of leadership that receives

increasing attention is responsible Leadership, understood as the central concept of the different forms of positive

leadership, whether they be transformational, charismatic, ethical, or servant (Gardner, Cogliser, Davis &

Dickens, 2011; Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Avolio et al., 2004). This leadership style has been positively associated

with entrepreneurial activity (Rigtering & Weitzel, 2013; Mitteness et al., 2010; Jones & Crompton, 2009),

relating the characteristics of the entrepreneurs as responsible leaders in managing more effectively their work

teams.

In this sense, there is evidence that responsible entrepreneurial leaders are keen to involve their employees in

development of the business through the development of new products and new services (Jones and Crompton

2009). Studies have also found positive relationships between responsible Leadership and high levels of

individual creativity (Rego, Sousa, Marques, Pina & Cunha, 2012) and innovation in the work-teams (Černe et

al., 2013). Based on the social exchange theory Blau (1964) theorizes that certain organisational features such as

leadership affects intrapreneurial behaviour by altering the social exchanges between the organisation and its

employees, between individual employees, and between employees and their managers. Using social exchange

theory helps the current study to form expectations about the relations between responsible leadership and

employee intrapreneurial behaviour, such that when responsible leaders can invoke the intrapreneur behaviours

of the employees by their ethical, proactive and welcoming traits (Jong, Parker, Wennekers & Wu, 2015).

Supervisor-provided resource is also a crucial factor which may ensure employee intrapreneurial behaviour. It

can be argued that supervisors are the “human face” of the organisation and enable employees to achieve their

personal and organisational goals though creativity and innovation (Rabbani, Akram, Habib & Sohail, 2017).

Lemmon, Glibkowski, Wayne, Chaudhry and Marinova (2016) stipulated that an employee’s perception of

things (objects, materials) that assist the focal employee in his or her work are described as goods resource which

should be availed to employees. The authors categorised these resources to include informational resources

(supervisor’s work-related communication, including facts, opinions, oral, or written communication, conveyed

verbally and/or behaviourally); love and status resources (love is an employee’s perception of his or her

supervisor’s warmth, caring, or friendship toward the employee, whereas status is an employee’s perception of

the supervisor’s admiration of the focal employee); and money (defined as an economic benefit, e.g., pay raises,

bonuses accrued by virtue of the employee’s supervisor).

In view of the foregoing and within the social exchange theory, employees may be compelled to go the extra

mile to seeking the improvement of the organisation by means of new ideas when the employees perceive their

socio-emotional needs satisfied by the supervisor resources (Zappalà, Toscano & Licciardello, 2019).

Admittedly, Ghana’s economic growth over the last decade has been among the most rapid in Africa and faster

than in some high investment emerging market economies. The economy of Ghana has experienced moderate

but consistent growth over the past 25 years, with growth rate between 1990 and 2010 averaging 5 percent.

Industry in Ghana accounts for about 25.3% of total GDP. Ghana's industrial production is rising at a 7.8% rate,

giving it the 38th fastest growing industrial production in the world due to government industrialization policies

(Addo, 2017). Currently, it is estimated that the average medium-term real GDP growth rate in Ghana would be

at least 8% per annum (Havi & Enu, 2014).

Among the manufacturing companies that contribute immensely to this growth is the Guinness Ghana Limited,

a leading alcoholic and non-alcoholic production company in Ghana. Established in 1960, the success is built on

an outstanding collection of brands across a range of categories, including beer, stout and spirits Today. Core

the company’s values is the sustained success driven by innovation and constant search for new experiences for

its consumers. In 2015, the company introduced other beverages including Orijin Bitters to the Ghanaian market

and have since developed variants such as the non-alcoholic Orijin Zero and Orijin Herbal Gin. In regard of

these innovations, one could allude these to the intrapreneurial spirits of the employees. Thus, a study on the

antecedents of intrapreneurial behaviour among employees of Guinness Ghana is worth pursuing.

Page 2045

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Statement of the Problem

Intrapreneurial behavior is characterised by creativeness, proactiveness and the ability to create new inventions

and recognize opportunities (Neessen, Caniëls, Vos & de Jong, 2019). In our rapidly changing world with

significant pressure on competitiveness with keeping up with new demands and technological trends,

intrapreneurship is said to be the answer (Covin & Slevin, 2019). In order for intrapreneurial behaviour to occur

Yariv and Galit (2017) argue that organisational support, including tolerance for risk and managerial support, is

necessary. This points to the important role managers and their leadership behaviours play in facilitating

innovation and intrapreneurship in their organisations (Mueller et al., 2020; Sperber & Linder, 2018).

Previous research shows that managers’ leadership styles influence employees’ intrapreneurial behaviour

(Valsania et al., 2016; Moriano et al., 2014). For instance, Valsania et al. (2016) show that responsible leadership

is positively related to intrapreneurial behaviour. In addition, Moriano et al. (2014) show that responsible

leadership has the great potential of predicting the intrapreneurial behaviour of the employees in an establishment

particularly in the manufacturing sector. positively relates to intrapreneurial behaviour. Furthermore, Černe et

al. (2013) and Rego et al. (2012) have found positive relationships between some other forms of leadership

(authentic leadership and transformational) and high levels of individual creativity and innovation in the work-

teams.

Although these attempts have been made to link leadership with intrapreneurial behaviours, Yariv and Galit

(2017) suggest that future research is still needed to look at the viewpoint of the employee’s perspective when

it comes to intrapreneurial behaviour. Again, Heinze and Weber (2016) pointed that besides leadership,

intrapreneurial behaviours of employees can be facilitated by other variables of diverse origins and levels of

analysis such as supervisor-provided resources. In fact, Lemme et al. (2016) has shown the importance

supervisor-provided resource in leadership processes and that, in order to build an organisation that develops its

workers’ feelings of empowerment, leaders should take the initiative of providing love, money and effective

communication. In this sense, the impact of responsible leadership on the intrapreneurial behaviours of

employees may be mediated and increased by other intermediate variables, such as supervisor-provided

resources.

Based on the foregoing arguments and calls by researchers to relook at the link between leadership and

intrapreneurial behaviours through other collaborating variables, this study sought to fill these gaps by mediating

supervisor-provided resources with the constructs. Hence, the study examined the mediating role of supervisor-

provided resources in the relationship between responsible leadership and intrapreneurial behaviours among

employees at the Guinness Ghana limited.

Purpose of the Study

The overriding purpose of the study was to investigate the influence of responsible leadership on the

intrapreneurial behaviour of employees at the Guinness Ghana limited.

Objectives of the Study

The specific objectives of the Study are to:

i. examine the influence of responsible leadership on employee intrapreneurial behaviour.

ii. investigate the influence of responsible leadership on supervisor- provided resources.

iii.analyse the influence of supervisor-provided resources on employee intrapreneurial behaviour.

iv. analyse the mediating role of supervisor-provided resources in the relationship between responsible

leadership and employee intrapreneurial behaviour.

Page 2046

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Research Hypotheses

In line with the objectives and the available literature, the following hypotheses guide the study.

H1: Responsible leadership has significant positive relationship with intrapreneurial behaviour.

H2: Responsible leadership has significant positive relationship with supervisor-provided resources.

H3: Supervisor-provided resources has significant positive relationship with employee intrapreneurial

behaviour.

H4: Supervisor-provided resources mediates the relationship between responsible leadership and intrapreneurial

behaviour.

Significance of the Study

The contribution of this study is to extend current research on intrapreneurship by looking at the phenomena from

an overlooked point of view and extending the knowledge about how responsible leadership affects the

intrapreneurial behaviour. It will help the management of the Guinness Ghana to formulate appropriate policies

that will help groom people to be responsible leaders to improve upon their capacity necessary to stimulate

employees’ intrapreneurial behaviours. The results of the study will also help employers know the values and

beliefs and expectations such as intrapreneurial behaviours of the employees that will make them feel enthused

to offer their best on the job.

The findings in this study could also serve as an empirical contribution to leaders who manage employees with

intrapreneurial behaviour and as several researchers’ state, intrapreneurship is an efficient way to increase

financial performance. Engaging in intrapreneurial behaviour can lead to better performance, more profitability

and firm growth if the recommendations of the study are practiced. As the study focuses on the employee’s

perspective it provides an insight in what is important for the intrapreneurs and how their behavior could be

enhanced as well as inhibited.

Delimitation of the Study

The study was conducted at the Guinness Ghana, Headquarter, Accra. The study targeted the employees working

at the headquarters of the offices of the firm to assess how they perceive their leaders (heads of departments,

supervisors or unit leaders) and how they influence their intrapreneurial behaviour.

Limitation

One of the major limitations of the study wase the use of the questionnaire. It does not allow the researcher to

probe further for reasons behind the responses given by the respondents. Thus, self-administered research

instrument like the questionnaire does not afford the researcher the opportunity to further interrogate the issues

presented by the respondents. Again, because of the outbreak of COVID-19, respondents were reluctant to

responding to the questionnaires. Despite these challenges, the researcher made efforts to achieve a reliable

response rate.

Organisation of the Study

The dissertation is organised into five chapters. Chapter one, illustrates the background and statement of the

problem, the objectives of the study, and a set of research questions and hypothesis. It also includes the scope

and significance of the study and the organisation of the thesis. Chapter two, review of relevant literature on the

subject of responsible leadership, supervisor provided resources, and employee intrapreneurial behaviour.

Chapter three, the research methods, presents the methodological framework adopted for the study. It covers the

research design, a description of the study area, characteristics of the target population, sampling procedures,

data collection instruments, fieldwork, as well as data processing and analysis.

Page 2047

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Chapter four presents the findings from data to be collected from the employees ofthe firms and make necessary

inferences from the results. Chapter five is the summary, conclusions, and recommendations which draws

together all aspects of this research in a concise manner. It also explores the possibility of extending this research

in the future.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

The focus of this chapter is to outline arguments made by prior researchers concerning the constructs under the

study. A literature review is a comprehensive overview of prior research regarding a specific topic (Denney &

Tewksbury, 2013). The chapter opens a discussion on the relevant theories that underpin the study and have been

adopted in extant literature to expand knowledge in the field. The chapter further reviewed the concepts such as

responsible leadership, supervisor-provided resources and intrapreneurial behaviour concepts. The chapter also

covered an empirical review of studies done on the variables whiles presenting the direction of the study on the

pictorial conceptual framework to aid readability and understanding.

Theoretical Review

Many theories can be deployed to explain the constructs contained in this study. however, the most applicable

theory from which inferences can be drawn to illustrate the interrelationships among the constructs of the study

is the social exchange (SET).

Social Exchange Theory (SET)

The SET was propounded by Blau (1964) to illustrate how two parties in a relationship seek either party interest

through exchanges. According to the famous author, social exchanges are necessary for maintaining good

relationships among individuals (i.e., employers and employees) in an establishment. The theory further

suggests that when one party does good or seeks the welfare of the other party, the later will feel obliged to

reciprocate another good to the former.

Moreover, Peter (2016) advanced that SET is based on the principle that people enter into relationships in which

they can maximise benefits and minimise costs. This stipulates that certain workplace antecedents like

responsible leadership can lead to improved employee attitudes, behaviour, performance and extra effort to

intrapreneurial behaviour (Cropanzano et al., 2001). The premise is that if employers take care of employees by

providing them responsible leadership and making them engaged (Hassan & Ahmed, 2011) in the workplace,

the employees, in turn, will view that as beneficial, advantageous, and fair to them and may reciprocate by

offering their spirit to the task in the form of offering new ideas, product design skills and creativity.

In the context of this study, SET contributes to explaining why employees who perceive a responsible leadership

style in their supervisors develop a feeling of obligation to reciprocate with improved intrapreneurial activities.

Previous research has also indicated that responsible leadership elevates workers’ extra work roles by promoting

employees’ affective commitment and individual creativity (Duarte et al., 2021; Ribeiro et al., 2018).

Consequently, this will develop the employees’ propensity to perform effectively and respond with positive

attitude, behaviour, and action – thus, become intrapreneurial active staff. Furthermore, subordinates working

under a responsible leader’s guidance may feel, in accordance with the norm of reciprocity, the need to improve

their performance to repay the leader’s positive behaviours and thus balance the exchange relationship (Wang et

al., 2014; Ribeiro et al., 2018).

Conceptual Review

This section reviews the concepts in order help enhance our knowledge concerning the constructs used in this

study. The constructs are responsible leadership, work meaningfulness and employee intrapreneurial behaviour.

The definitions given in the literature concerning constructs was discussed. Specifically, different perspectives

provided in the literature in defining and measuring the construct will be looked at accordingly. The review will

Page 2048

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

address all the issues concerning the definition and the measurements of the constructs as mentioned earlier,

thereby clearing all misunderstandings likely to befall the readers.

Concept of Responsible Leadership

In the context of economic globalisation, leaders today are facing a dynamic, fast‐paced, complex, and extremely

competitive business environment that requires them to not only achieve financial performance but also focus

on advancing the interest of employees (Maak & Pless, 2006; Voegtlin, Patzer & Scherer, 2012). In order to

respond to these changes, Maak and Pless (2006) theorized and proposed the conceptualisation of responsible

leadership by integrating the leadership and corporate social responsibility literature. Leadership theories, for

instance, ethical, transformational, and servant leadership, predominantly focus on the relationship of leaders

with followers inside the organization, whereas responsible leadership tries to build a trustful and sustainable

association with different internal and external stakeholders of the organisation, including employees, customers,

investors, and natural environment (Miska & Mendenhall, 2018; Pless & Maak, 2011).

Responsible leadership has desirable consequences for employees and organisations, for example, responsible

leadership positively affects firm performance (Wang, Huang, Gao, Ansett & Xu, 2015), and employee job

satisfaction and retention (Doh, Stumpf & Tymon, 2011). Responsible leaders act ethically by setting examples

of doing things in a right way for their followers (Freeman & Auster, 2011). According to Voegtlin (2011),

responsible leadership constrains followers' unethical behaviour . Responsible leaders can promote the

sustainable development of organisations by highlighting social, economic, and environmental performance

(Miska et al., 2014; Székely & Knirsch, 2005).

Although extant literature has presented that responsible leadership is closely related to firm performance,

commitment and job satisfaction (Doh et al., 2011; Voegtlin, 2011; Wang et al., 2015), its potential influence on

prosocial behaviour has thus far received little empiricalattention. Responsible leadership focuses consciously on

matters of responsibility, such as appropriate moral decision making, trust building, sustainable development,

and green action choices (Voegtlin, 2011). According to Maak and Pless (2006), responsible leadership is seen

as a leadership style where a leader acts as a weaver of stakeholder relationships and responds to both existing

gaps in theory and practical leadership challenges. Therefore, it has received much attention in recent decades

and has become an essential and particular studied leadership style.

Actually, there is limited research examining the effectiveness of responsible leadership as it relates to employee

behaviours. Miska et al. (2014) proposed that employee ideas regarding prosocial behaviours, and their

willingness to devote themselves to citizenship behaviours, are affected by responsible leadership. For Witt and

Stahl (2016), responsible leadership is still an underdeveloped concept. Maak and Pless (2006) consider

responsible leadership as a method for creating and maintaining trusting relationships with in and out of

organisation stakeholders in an attempt to fulfill a predetermined set of societal obligations. Wang et al. (2015)

define responsible leadership as social relational and ethical interactions developed and maintained between

those who affect and those who are affected by a particular organization's practices.

Witt and Stahl (2016) demonstrate that responsible leadership is a combination of ethics, leadership, social

awareness, and stakeholder engagement in organizational practices. Waldman (2011) points out that responsible

leadership stems from one of two approaches to the stakeholder. The first is normative and urges corporate

decision makers to balance between maximising shareholders' profits and realising the expected needs of other

stakeholders. This involves engaging different stakeholders in deciding upon a set of social responsibilities the

organization has to secure. The second approach is economic and prioritizes maximizing shareholders' financial

returns in addition to constantly seeking economic returns from socially responsible investments. Hymavathi,

Kasarabada and Avadhanam (2015) elaborate that responsible leadership reflects a social and moral scheme in

which organisational leaders drive, export, and disseminate the virtues of wisdom, courage, and respect to both

in‐and‐out stakeholders. This entails a people‐ centered activitywithpurpose to aggravate the welfare ofsocieties,

enhance the well‐being of the environment, and secure the values of social peace in the communities in which

the organisation operates.

Accordingly, the mission of every organisation should guarantee an answer to the question: Who is the

Page 2049

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

organisation responsible to and for what? This is in line with what is highlighted by Maak (2007), who considers

that today's organisation has to maintain a social agenda about its surrounding problems (e.g., unemployment,

violations of human rights, and environmental awareness) and regularly play a role in confronting and managing

them. The same has been asserted by Pearce, Wassenaar, and Manz (2014) and Voegtlin (2011), who articulate

that organisations have a massive power base and huge networks of relationships and they should contribute

more to the betterment of their surrounding communities and to enhance the interest of employees.

Responsible Leadership and Other Current Leadership Styles

For Maak and Pless (2005) and Gond et al. (2011), in broader position from the point of view of organisational

leadership, the vocation of responsible leadership takes stakeholders into account and is distinguished from other

styles since it is based on rational process of those involved in management. Five leadership styles reveal the

greatest overlap with responsible leadership, namely, transformational, servant, authentic, spiritual and

emotional. From the perspective of Stone et al. (2003) and Sheppard et al. (2013), the world has become more

complicated with the rapid change in the global economic environment, and new times require new dynamic and

active leaders able to cope with fundamental questions. In this situation, transformational leadership and servant

leadership provide a conceptual structure for the new dynamics now required for leadership. According to

Metcalf and Benn (2013), authentic and transformational leadership styles are directly or indirectly linked to

business sustainability and social responsibility, values observed by the responsible leadership style.

Although transformational leadership has been suitably researched and become common practice, the theo1y of

responsible leadership needs additional support. Based on the conceptualization by Brown and Trevino (2006),

these authors also try to clarify the relationships between transformational leadership and the servant theory of

leadership. However, servant leadership provides leaders with great opportunities. For Stone et al. (2003), this

recent leadership style puts the accent on other people, i.e., on those it should serve, unlike other styles that do

not emphasize this focus so much. In Avolio and Gardner (2005) and Shamir and Eilam (2005,) authentic

leadership can incorporate transformational, charismatic, servant, spiritual or other forms of positive leadership.

However, in contrast to transformational leadership, in particular, authentic leadership may or may not be

charismatic. These leaders build lasting relationships, work with great determination, meaning, purpose and

values, but are not necessarily described as charismatic leaders according to the definition of the central

component of transformational leadership stated by Bass (1990). They believe the main difference is that

authentic leaders are anchored in their deep sense of self. They know how to place themselves in important

matters, values and beliefs. For example, whereas charismatic leaders use rhetoric to persuade, influence and

mobilize followers, an authentic leader "energizes" followers through creating meaning and positive building of

the social situation for himself and his followers. Therefore, transformational leaders can be authentic or

non-authentic and non-transformational leaders can also be authentic (Shamir & Eilam, 2005).

Also, according to Avolio and Gardner (2005), and in contrast to the theo1y of authentic leadership studied by

the authors, explicit recognition of the importance of the mediating role of self-awareness and regulation of

followers, as well as of positive psychological capital and a positive organizational context, are largely absent

from the theory inherent to servant leadership. Also, for these authors, the theory of spiritual leadership put

forward by Fry (2003) includes implicit recognition of the role of the leader's self-awareness with a focus on the

leader's vision, values and attitudes which are generally classified as altruistic love and hope/faith. Those

values/attitudes arealso described as leader behaviours, causing some confusion in relation to those constructs

and their role in spiritual leadership. Overlapping areas between authentic and spiritual leadership theories

include the focus on integrity, confidence, courage, hope and resilience. Avolio and Gardner (2005) consider

that spiritual leadership neglects consideration of self-regulation and the moderating role of the

organizational context.

In the view of Humphrey (2002), emotional leadership also takes on various facets, which leads to different

types of leadership requiring different emotional capacities of leadership. So, for example, in difficult

circumstances, transformational leaders need a strong emotional component of self- management so as to

develop the vision they transmit to their followers. In this analysis, and according to Dulewicz and Higgs (2005),

the literature suggests that the situation or context is highly relevant for the leadership style. In addition,

Page 2050

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

many claim that leadership nowadays is largely a question of how to handle and lead change, and so the leader's

effectiveness has to be assessed in the light of recourse to different behaviour in various contexts of change.

Besides, it must not be forgotten, as Ilies et al. (2004) demonstrated, that a significant part of the inheritance of

responsible leadership is due to transmission of individual differences associated with other leadership styles

(Rajah et al., 2011).

Supervisor-Provided Resources

Supervisor-provided resource (SPR) is one of the constructs that is developing in literature as result of the need

to resources from relationships in a social exchange (Blau, 1964) context. Lemmon et al. (2016), who are the

leading scholar developing the constructs note that in order to understand what a resource given to an employee

by a supervisor might be, a distinction must first be drawn between resources and relationships. According to

the authors while resources are benefits that are transmitted from one party to another party to satisfy the needs

of the recipient, relationships are interpersonal facilitating conditions required for the exchange of resources.

Prior to Lemmon et al.’s (2016) conceptualization of resources, Foa and Foa (1974) earlier indicated that

resources are made of four characteristics simultaneously: mode, actor, object, and class. Hobfoll (2002) also

claimed that resources are those entities that either are centrally valued in their own right (e.g., self-esteem, close

attachments, health, and inner peace) or act as a means to obtaincentrallyvalued ends (e.g., money, social support,

and credit). From Hobfoll’s (2002) point of view, supervisors can lift the employees by having a close

relationship with them, offering social support and health related benefits.

Lemmon et al. (2016) specifically in addition to describing what constitutes a resource define six content classes:

services, goods, information, love, status, and money. Services, goods, and information involve the exchange of

resources that benefit an employee’s assigned tasks. A service resource is the perception of acts performed by the

supervisor that help the focal employee complete his or her job duties. An employee’s perception of things

(objects, materials) that assist the focal employee in his or her work are described as goods resource.

Informational resources include a supervisor’s work-related communication, including facts, opinions, oral, or

written communication, conveyed verbally and/or behaviour ally. Love and status resources are distinct from

task resources. The latter offer immediate benefit or relief to an employee’s task, whereas love and status provide

socioemotional benefits. Love is an employee’s perception of his or her supervisor’s warmth, caring, or

friendship toward the employee, whereas status is an employee’s perception of the supervisor’s admiration of

the focal employee.

Finally, money is a third resource class, which is distinct from other resource types because it is narrowly defined

as an economic benefit (e.g., pay raises, bonuses) accrued by virtue of the employee’s supervisor. In summary,

Lemmon et al. (2016) define supervisor-provided resources to love, status, and money that a supervisor offers to

subordinate in the exchange relationship to induce the subordinate to portray acceptable behaviours.

Intrapreneurial Behaviour

In organisational environments, intrapreneurial behaviour is defined as voluntary employee behaviour aimed at

the perception of opportunities, generation of ideas, creation of new products, as well as the development of

new business lines (Farrukh, Lee & Shahzad, 2019; De Jong et al., 2011). In the literature on entrepreneurship in

existing organisations, the term intrapreneurship has been associated with corporate entrepreneurship

/entrepreneurial orientation, which has caused some confusion when studying it (Rigtering & Weitzel, 2013).

Hence, it is necessary to specify that corporate entrepreneurship or entrepreneurial orientation are conceived at

the organizational level and are planned, promoted, and monitored by the organization, in a “top-bottom” process

(Gerards, van Wetten & van Sambeek, 2020). In contrast, intrapreneurship is a “bottom-top” process related to

the spontaneous behaviours of individual employees (Amo, 2010; Rigtering & Weitzel, 2013). Thus, employee

intrapreneurial behaviour is only one component of corporate entrepreneurship, subsequently carried out—or

not— in the organization through voluntaryand individual acts (Rigtering & Weitzel, 2013; Seshadri & Tripathy,

2006).

Intrapreneurial behaviours are self-initiated and it is unlikely for them to be included in the job description

(Rigtering & Weitzel 2013); their emergence is not the result of organizational policies, and they can even be

Page 2051

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

performed without the managers’ permission (Özsungur, 2019), provoking controversial situations within the

organization and generating role conflicts (Wakkee et al., 2010). Thus, they can be considered a sort of

challenging extra- role behaviour. Curcuruto and Griffin (2018) elaborate a classification of extra- role

behaviours, distinguishing between affiliative and challenging. Affiliative behaviours are particularly directed

towards individuals; they are intended to promote relationships among members; for example, helping

behaviours. Challenging extra-role behaviours have a proactive focus aimed at promoting organizational

evolution, offering ideas and implementing changes to improve the organization.

Intrapreneurial behaviour can be conceptualised in several ways. Intrapreneurial behaviour is usually

conceptualised as employees’ innovative, proactive and risk-taking behaviours (Jong et al., 2015; Rigtering &

Weitzel 2013; Stam et al., 2012). However, from this conceptualisation it remains unclear what is specifically

intrapreneurial about these behaviours and how they lead to entrepreneurial outcomes. Therefore, Gawke et al.

(2019) conceptualise that what sets intrapreneurs apart from other innovative and proactive employees, are

behaviours that specifically revolve around new venture creation and strategic renewal. New venture creation

involves the development of new businesses or new organisations (Gartner 1985). New venture behaviour

consists of an employee’s agentic and anticipatory behaviours with the goal of creating new business or new

organisations for an existing organisation (Gawke et al., 2019). Strategic renewal entails the process, content and

outcome of attributes of an organisation being refreshed or replaced, with the potential of affecting long-term

prospects (Agarwal & Helfat, 2009). Strategic renewal behaviour includes behaviours that aim to increase an

organisation’s ability to react to internal and external developments (Gawke et al., 2019).

A growing body of research investigates entrepreneurship at the employee level and attempts to uncover the

organisational and job characteristics that drive intrapreneurial behaviour (Jong et al., 2015; Rigtering et al.,

2019). The organisational context has been found to play an important role in facilitating or obstructing

intrapreneurial behaviour (Blanka, 2018; Mustafa et al., 2018; Neessen et al., 2018). The organisational

context of intrapreneurs allows them to make use of organisational resources and networks, and enjoy support

and flexibility in case of failure (Blanka, 2018; Zenovia, 2011).

Intrapreneurship is a process through which employees pursue opportunities regardless of the resources they

have for organizational renewal, profitability and growth (Alpkan et al., 2010; Stevenson & Jarillo, 2007).

Similarly, intrapreneurship is conceptualized as spirit of entrepreneurship within an organization. IB

encompasses three main dimensions: innovation, risk-taking and proactiveness. Innovativeness is the propensity

of individuals to create new ideas; risk-taking is defined as the propensity of individuals to take risks with the

intention of benefitting the organization, and proactiveness is the anticipation and action taken on future needs,

challenges and changes that lead to new opportunities (Letonja et al., 2016; Valsania et al., 2016).

This type of behaviours can be controversial, involving potential violations of rules and, in some cases, leading

to some risk for the individual or the organization (Raub, & Robert 2010; Van Dyne et al. 1995). Examples of

this category would be to make voluntary and constructive efforts to achieve a functional organizational change

concerning how the work is currently done (Taking Charge, Morrison & Phelps 1999). Innovative work

behaviors (Ramamoorthy et al. 2005) and intrapreneurial behaviours (Amo 2005; Bruch 2003; Stull & Singh

2005) could also be included in this category. Miller (1983) studied entrepreneurial orientation at the

organizational level, considering it as a multidimensional concept made up of three components. This

conceptualization can also be applied to the individual level, and intrapreneurial behaviour is viewed as a

higher-order construct, which is reflected in individuals’ risk-taking, innovation, and proactiveness (Jong

et al., 2011; Stull & Singh 2005; Wakkee et al. 2010).

Risktaking can be defined as the preference for situations that can provide rewards if successful, but also severe

consequences if the individual fails. Innovation refers to the implantation of original and appropriate ideas

developed through creativity. Proactiveness underlines a vision of the future or long-term focus, not waiting to

respond to demands, but anticipating them, preparing to respond to them.

Empirical Review

The link between responsible leadership and intrapreneurial behaviour and supervisor-provided resources is now

Page 2052

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

developing in literature. Therefore, it is rare to find studies that investigate the relationship between the

constructs. The study draws inference from related and postulations made by prior scholars that suggest

responsible leadership’s potential to correlate with these variables.

Responsible Leadership (RL) and Intrapreneurial Behaviour (IB)

Leadership plays a vital role in nurturing creative and innovative behavior in organizations (Fontana & Musa,

2017). Managers can lead and encourage employees to foster IB in many forms, including risk-taking,

championing innovation and proactiveness. Among the theories of leadership, RL is considered to be the most

effective in nurturing intrapreneurship in the organization, as this type of leadership motivates innovation and

creativity (Razavi & Aziz, 2017; Si & Wei, 2012; Tharnpas & Sakun, 2015).

A plethora of research in the past decade showed that managers who demonstrate the characteristics of RL

were found to be associated with encouraging employees to make extra effort, demonstrate good citizenship

behavior and work innovatively in organizations (Asencio, 2016; Edú Valsania et al., 2014). Responsible leaders

motivate and encourage employees to commit to long-term goals, initiate creative ideas and craft different ways

of doing things (Qu et al., 2015). A high need for achievement and a low need for conformance are prerequisites

of IB (Afsar et al., 2017). According to Pearce (2007), a transformational leader motivates employees to take

calculated risks and be proactive in performing their work tasks in order to exploit opportunities effectively. RL

creates a platform for intrapreneurship in organizations for several reasons.

First, RL helps to develop a clearer vision for the organization that might be used to determine entrepreneurial

opportunities (Wibowo & Saptono, 2018). Second, RL motivates and encourages subordinates and followers to

be self- dependent and think on their own volition to create new ideas and question the status quo (Razavi & Ab

Aziz, 2017). Third, RL enhances skills and builds confidence in their colleagues and followers, and helps to

construct innovative responses to issues in the organization (Jung et al., 2003). In recent studies, it has been

demonstrated that RL has a positive effect on employees’ intrapreneurial actions (Razavi & Aziz, 2017; Valsania

et al., 2016).

RL is a very important factor in building the organizationalenvironment (Hörnqvist & Leffler, 2014). Responsible

leaders establish an environment that empowers employees and provides enough support to innovate (Jung et al.,

2003). Responsible leaders know that to enhance innovative behavior of employees, they should be provided

with internal strength, self-confidence and clear vision, in reciprocity, employee can be proactive in their work

behavior (Malloch, 2014). Thus, based on the above discussion, the study hypothesised the following:

H1: Responsible leadership has significant positive relationship with intrapreneurial behaviour.

Responsible Leadership and Supervisor-provided Resources

Responsible leadership focuses consciously on matters of responsibility, such as appropriate moral decision-

making, trust building, sustainable development and green action choices (Pless & Maak, 2011). According to

Maak and Pless (2006), responsible leadership is seen as a leadership style where a leader acts as a weaver of

stakeholder relationships and responds to both existing gaps in theory and practical leadership challenges.

Supervisor- provided resources (SPR) has also been espoused as managers or supervisors showing love,

respecting status, and providing money to subordinates in an exchange relationship to induce the subordinate to

portray acceptable behaviours (Lemmon et al., 2016). It is a major area of concern for both organizations and

employees (Swalhi et al., 2017). From the forgoing, it could be suggested that responsible leadership and SPR

characteristics overlap. Thus, responsible leaders are able to carry the employees along with him through love,

respecting their status and granting them rewards for extra role behaviours (Lamm et al., 2013; Boiral, Baron &

Gunnlaugson, 2014). Hence, the study hypothesised that:

H2: Responsible leadership has significant positive relationship with supervisor-provided resource.

Supervisor-provided Resource and Intrapreneurial Behaviour

Glibkowski, McGinnis, Gillespie and Schommer (2014) assert that resources are central to the employees in

Page 2053

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

course of executing their job. For example, froma practical perspective, understanding explicitlywhich resources

cause desired outcomes, such as performance, extra-role behaviour, and commitment, is useful (Glibkowski et

al., 2014). With this knowledge in-hand, managers can understand which resource-levers to employ. Each

resource type becomes an operational criterion against which actions are judged by participants (lemme et al.,

2016). Using social exchange theory, resources such as love and status correspond with social resources of which

when granted faithfully to subordinates could enhance employee intrapreneurial behaviour.

Again, supervisor’s support for the employees is crucial factor which ensures employee extra behaviours.

Rabbani, Akram, Habib and Sohail (2017) argued that supervisors are the “human face” of the organization and

that a good supervisor enables employees to achieve their personal as well as organisational goals. Because

supervisors are front side of the organisation, any initiatives they take in form of providing right resources to the

employees will incite them to demonstrate intrapreneurial behaviours (Hannah et al., 2014). Further, Asmed,

(2006) argued that employees can perform very well if the relationships between themselves and their employer

are better. In an organization if supervisors try to provide a support to individuals, then they are not as much

expected to depart an organization and their commitment level to intrapreneurial orientation may increase

(Zappalà, Toscano & Licciardello, 2019). Therefore, the study postulated that:

H3: Supervisor-provided resource has significant positive relationship with employee intrapreneurial

behaviour.

Responsible Leadership, Supervisor-Provided Resource and Intrapreneurial Behaviour

Previous studies suggested that beside leadership, other factors can be strong contributors to employee extra

behaviour including intrapreneurial behaviours (Akram, Lei, Haider & Hussain, 2018). Responsible Leadership

helps organisation members go the extra mile beyond their defined responsibilities and enrich their beliefs about

their core competencies and capabilities to complete the assigned task in innovative and creative ways. Also,

resources are being the most important organisational assets that allow the novel organisational results such as

innovation (Kamasak & Bulutlar, 2010). Lemme et al. (2016) has shown that immediate benefit or relief to an

employee’s task, such as love and status provide socioemotional benefits to employees. Thus, knowledge sharing

by supervisors allows employees to pass the knowledge to other workers and also enables others to obtain

valuable knowledge for new product development (Kuo et al., 2014), that facilitate in the generating, promoting

and implementing of novel ideas.

This study argue that responsible leadership traits could prompt supervisors to provide resources to employees

which will in turn lead to employee’s intrapreneurial inclinations. Hence, the postulation that:

H4: Supervisor-provided resource mediates the relationship between responsible leadership and intrapreneurial

behaviour.

Lessons Learnt

In the review, a number of lessons have been learnt. Among these lessons sterned from methodological use and

analytical tools employed in the previous works. A number of the studies reviewed showed that the scholars used

the simple random sampling techniques in drawing the respondents. Few of them relied on non-probability

sampling techniques such as purposive for their qualitative approach. Concerning the analytical tools, majority

relied on the use correlation and regression between the two variables. Much was not seen on the use of the

techniques such as partial least square structural equation modelling.

Conceptual Framework

One of the important components of the research is how well to represent one’s ideas diagrammatically for easy

comprehension of readers. Guntur (2019) argued that the conceptual framework forms the “blueprint” of every

research and gives clarity and direction to the ideas being expressed in such research. Grant and Osanloo (2014)

emphasised the importance of a conceptual framework by stating that, it is the foundation upon which research

is constructed. Based on the purpose and the guiding objectives of the study, the conceptual framework for this

Page 2054

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

present study is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework Source: Author’s Construct (2021)

The framework as depicted shows the interrelationships among the variables under study. intrapreneurial

behaviour is the dependent variable of the study and responsible leadership is the independent variable.

Supervisor- provided resources as serves as the mediating variable as already established in the literature.

According to the framework, responsible leadership could have a direct and indirect link with intrapreneurial

behaviour through supervisor- provided resources.

Chapter Summary

The chapter reviewed the literature on theoretical, conceptual and empirical issues relating to responsible

leadership, supervisor-provided resources and intrapreneurial behaviour. Important issues and lessons from the

review informed the conceptual framework of the study. The review further proved beneficial in the research

methods section, analyses, presentation of findings, discussions, conclusions and recommendations.

RESEARCH METHODS

Introduction

This chapter presents the methodology used to carry out this study. It therefore identifies how the research was

undertaken and the rationale behind each of the methods that was used. The elaborated elements under this

section include; research design, research approach, research area, population, sample and sampling techniques,

instrument, data collection procedure, reliability, validity, data analysis and ethical issues.

Research Approach

According to Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2016), there are three broad approaches of research, namely;

quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods. While quantitative approach enables the researcher to examine

associations between variables, qualitative approachdeals with smallaspects of social reality (Sekaran & Bougie,

2016). Saunders et al. (2016) advanced that the difference between quantitative methods of research and

qualitative methods of research may be influenced by the nature of data used for the study. Whereas numeric data

is used in quantitative research, non-numeric data is utilised in a qualitative research.

Neuman (2014) posited that the two approaches can also be differentiated in terms of the procedure used in data

collection and analyses. For example, whereas in quantitative research method, questionnaire is predominantly

used by researchers for data collection and also analysing data quantitatively, in qualitative research method,

interview is used by researchers for data collection and the analysis is done qualitatively. Sekaran and Bougie

(2016), and Saunders et al. (2016) indicated that the third approach which is mixed method is merely a

combination of the earlier two approaches. The authors further asserted that whilst the quantitative research

method permits the generalisation ofthe sample results to the entire population, qualitative research method is not

for the generalisation of the sample results to the entire population.

Page 2055

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

The current study employs the quantitative research approach. This is due to the nature and purpose of the study

under consideration. The current study demands that researcher collect numerical data that would be analysed

quantitatively. The current study also demands that the study’s result is generalized on the entire population.

Tashakkori and Teddlie (2010) averred those quantitative methods are often considered as deductive in nature

because inferences from tests of statistical hypotheses result to general inferences about characteristics of a

population. Lincoln, Lynham and Guba (2011) are also of the view that quantitative approach to research is

directed towards the development oftestable hypothesis and theories which are generalizable across settings. The

factors raised earlier are the reasons behind the choice of quantitative research approach against the qualitative

research approach.

Research Design

According to Sekaran and Bougie (2016), a research design is a plan or a guide which specifies how data relating

to a given research should be collected, measured and analysed. Kothari (2004) also posited that research designs

deal with creation of decisions vis-à-vis the techniques which are utilized in gathering data, the type of strategies

and instruments for sampling, and ways in which the constraints of time and cost can be dispensed. Sekaran and

Bougie (2016), and Saunders et al. (2016) categorised research design into three broad categories; namely,

exploratory, descriptive and causal designs. In the view of the authors, researchers employ an exploratory design

when little or no information exists about how study variables have been dealt with by earlier scholars.

Furthermore, a descriptive design is utilised by scholars when they want to describe and understand the

characteristics of the study variables. Finally, researchers adopt a causaldesign when theywant to determine how

one variable causes another variable to change.

This research adopted correlational research design. The correlational study design which falls under the causal

design was also employed, as it helps to explore the relationships or links between the variables under study.

Thus, it would help measure the extent to which the study variables are related or to determine which variables

are interacting and what type of interaction is occurring.

Sekaran and Bougie (2016) argue that for causal design to be used, a researcher must be certain that a change in

the dependent variable is not caused by any other variable except the variable of interest. The authors further

asserted that if the study failed to establish the above condition, it could at best be considered as a correlational

one. Since this study cannot conclude that employee development is the only variable that causes change in the

employee performance, it can only be considered as a correlational one rather than a causal one. Creswell (2014)

averred that a correlational design is a helpful design because through it, researchers can examine the relationship

between the variables of interest.

Study Organisation

Established in 1960, the success of Guinness Ghana was built on an outstanding collection of brands across a

range of categories, including beer, stout and spirits Today, we are the only beverage company in Ghana listed

on the Ghana Stock Exchange. The company has been sustained through innovation and is constantly looking to

create new experiences for its consumers. In 2015, Guinness Ghana introduced Orijin Bitters to the Ghanaian

market and have since developed variants such as the non-alcoholic Orijin Zero and Orijin Herbal Gin. In a fast-

paced and dynamic market, the company has also introduced plastic packaging for Malta Guinness, Alvaro and

Orijin Zero to meet growing consumer demand for convenience. The company is committed to having a positive

impact where it operates and is proud of its work to address issues such as water efficiency, carbon emissions,

inclusion and diversity.

Population

Population is the entire aggregation of cases that meet a designed set of criteria (Graneheim & Lundman, 2004).

According to Ngechu (2004), population is seen as a set of elements, events, people, or group of items under a

research-based investigation. Leedy and Ormrod (2010) also postulated that population can be seen as the target

group about which the researcher is interested in acquiring information and drawing conclusions. The population

of the study comprised 403 employees of the company excluding the managers (heads of units, departments and

Page 2056

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

sections) in the company.

Sample and Sampling Procedure

A subset or some part of a larger population that shares some set of characteristics of the larger group is termed

as a sample (Zikmund, Babin, Carr & Griffin, 2013). Bambale (2014) emphasised that a sample of a population

consists of that proportion of the number of units selected for investigation. Gravetter and Forzano (2012)

described sampling as the deliberate choice of a number of people who are to provide the data from which

conclusions about those people can be drawn. However, this study adopted a census approach where each

member of the population participated in the study. A census survey collects complete information from all

participants in the population (Champ, 2003). In other words, a census is often construed as the opposite of a

sample as its intent is to count everyone in a population rather than a fraction (Cochran, 2007). This means that

all the 403 employees working at Guinness Ghana ltd were used as respondents. In view of Sekaran and Bougie

(2016), a census method allows for allthe units ofthe analysis to be included in the studyto offer more opportunity

for all to participate in a given study. Furthermore, census technique provides a more accurate and exact

information as no unit is left out (Pandey, Pandey, Dwivedi, Pandey, Mishra & Mahapatra, 2020).

Data Collection Instrument

Collecting data for a study involves using certain research instruments and procedures for collecting the data. In

this study, a questionnaire was used in the collection of information from respondents on their respective

knowledge on the constructs. A questionnaire is a written document in survey research that has a set of questions

given to respondents or used by an interviewer to ask questions and record the answers (Neuman & Kreuger,

2003). A questionnaire could be answered by the person from whom information is sought or through an

interpreter. According to Neelankavil (2007), questionnaires guarantee greater uniformity, consistency and

objectivity in data collected. They also provide privacy and convenience for respondents during completion

while guaranteeing greater anonymity (Neelankavil, 2007). Groves, Fowler, Couper, Lepkowski, Singer and

Tourangeau (2011) posit that there are distinct advantages in using questionnaires rather than interview

methodology. One of such advantage is that questionnaires are less expensive and easier to administer than

personal interview.

The questionnaire included closed-ended items, in which the questions permit only certain responses such as

‘yes’ or ‘no’ or the Likert type to choose from answers provided in the questionnaire, as well as some open-

ended questions. They were grouped into 4 sections, A to D. Section A focused on the personal demographics,

Sections B, C and D gathered information on responsible leadership, supervisor-provided resources and

intrapreneurial behaviours of the respondents. Section B comprised responsible leadership (RL), which was

measured using a scale developed by Doh et al. (2011) that measures RL from employees’ perceptions about

their managers’ or supervisors’ leadership responses; it consists of 13 items. Section C measured supervisor-

provided resource scale developed and validated by Lemme at al. (2016) comprising love, status and money as

dimensions. Section D measure intrapreneurial behaviours using the 11-item measure developed by Wennekers

(2008). This scale is composed of measuring employees’ attitudes in terms of their innovation, proactiveness and

risktaking. Responses were on a seven-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = somewhat disagree, 3 = slightly

disagree, 4 = neither agree nor disagree, 5 = slightly agree, 6 = somewhat agree, 7 = strongly agree).

Data Collection Procedures

Primary data was used for this study. Primary data are original data sources that are collected fresh and for the

first time and therefore happen to be the original in nature. The primary data was collected using the survey

method. This involved the distribution of questionnaires and collection of data from respondents. In other to

achieve the objectives of the study, well designed questionnaires with close ended questions were used. The

questionnaires were distributed to the respondents by the researcher. The researcher agreed with the respondents

on appropriate time for the collection of the questionnaires. The time agreed upon was strictly adhered to and

this led to the successful completion of data collection. The collection of data was between June, 2021 and July,

2021. Out of 403 questionnaires that were distributed, 360 were successfully filled and return fully completed

by respondents. This represents 89% response rate which in the claims of Mugenda and Mugenda (2003), is

Page 2057

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

excellent for data analysis in social science research.

Reliability and validity

Administration of surveys should consider the aims of the study, the population under study, and the resources

available to enhance the validity and reliability of the study (Mutepfa & Tapera, 2018). Reliability, according to

Bless and Higson-Smith (2000), is concerned with consistency of the instrument, and an instrument is said to

have high reliability if it can be trusted to give an accurate and consistent measurement of an unchanging

value. A Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.70 and above are regarded appropriate for checking reliability ofa scale adapted

(Pallant, 2016). Inthis study, reliabilityand validity of the scholars who developed the scales were good given that

all the constructs loaded above 0.70. Thus, responsible leadership was 0.760, supervisor-provided resources was

0.730, and employee intrapreneurial behaviours was 0.801.

Data Processing and Analysis

The partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) was used to address the hypotheses of the

study. PLS-SEM approach deemed the most appropriate technique to be adopted for the study’s data analysis

(Hair et al., 2021), because SEM allows relationships between variables to be tested simultaneously by

combining both regression and factor analysis (Baron and Kenny 1986). By this method, SEM removes the

problems associated with Type 1 errors and the need for adjusting the alpha levels when running several multiple

regressions. SEM also allows measurement error to be controlled for (Hair et al., 2021) and therefore may

provide a more realistic measure of the model under investigation. The model was made of responsible

leadership, work supervisor-provided resources and intrapreneurial behaviours.

Measurement Model Assessment

The measurement model in PLS-SEM follows key underlying assumptions: item loadings, construct reliability

and validity, convergent validity (average variance extracted) and discriminant validity(Hair et al., 2016; Dijkstra

& Henseler, 2015; Diamantopoulos, Sarstedt, Fuchs, Wilczynski & Kaise, 2012). These assumptions have rules

of thumb that serve as guidelines to evaluate model results (Roldán & Sánchez-Franco, 2012). With respect to the

item reliability, loadings above 0.708 are recommended, as they indicate that the construct explains more than

50 per cent of the indicator’s variance, thus providing acceptable item reliability. Thus, indicators with loadings

below the 0.708 threshold were deleted in the model unless retaining those indicators did not affect the overall

reliability of the constructs (Hair et al., 2016).

For the internal consistency reliability Jöreskog’s (1971) composite reliability is often used. Higher values

generally indicate higher levels of reliability. Reliability values between 0.60 and 0.70 are considered “acceptable

in exploratory research,” values between 0.70 and 0.90 range from “satisfactory to good” (Hair et al., 2017, p.

112). However, Cronbach’s alpha and rho_A (all should have a 0.70 loading) may also be used if one assumes

that the factor model is correct. In this study, the researcher relied on values of all the measures of internal

consistency because they all met the satisfactory criteria.

Concerning the convergent validity, which measures the extent to which the construct converges to explain the

variance of its items (Hair et al., 2016), the metric used for evaluating a construct’s convergent validity is the

average variance extracted (AVE) for all items on each construct. To calculate the AVE, one has to square the

loading of each indicator on a construct and compute the mean value. An acceptable AVE is 0.50 or higher

indicating that the construct explains at least 50 per cent of the variance of its items (Henseler et al., 2016).

Finally, the discriminant validity, which is the extent to which a construct is empirically different or

distinct from other constructs in the structural model is evaluated by use of Fornell and Larcker’s (1981)

criterion or Henseler et al.’s (2015) heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio of the correlations. However, Fornell-

Larcker criterion does not perform well, particularly when the indicator loadings on a construct differ only

slightly (e.g., all the indicator loadings are between 0.65 and 0.85), and that researchers should rely on the HTMT

ratio. As rule of thumb value of HTMT ratio less than 0.85 connotes nonexistence of discriminant validity

problems (Henseler et al., 2015).

Page 2058

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Structural Model Assessment

When the measurement model assessment is satisfactory, the next step in evaluating PLS-SEM results is

assessing the structural model. According to Hair et al. (2016), the basic standard valuation criteria, to be

considered, include the coefficient of determination (R²), the Q²(“blindfolding-based cross- validated

redundancy measure”), effect size (f²) and the statistical significance and relevance of the path coefficients. As

an acceptable rule, R²of 0.25, 0.5 and 0.75 is considered as weak, moderate and substantial respectively.” In

addition, “a predictive relevance (Q²) of 0.02, 0.15 and 0.35 is considered as small, medium and large

respectively.” Furthermore, “effect size (f²) of 0.02, 0.15 and 0.35 is seen as small, medium and large

respectively.” Finally, a significant level of5% or less or at-statistic of1.96 orhigher is appropriate for astructural

model.

Mediation

The mediation effect was tested based on the procedure developed by Nitzl et al. (2016) in PLS-SEM. Nitzl et

al. (2016) propose that it is not necessary to conduct separate tests for direct and indirect paths by applying PLS-

SEM. A significant indirect effect is the only prerequisite for establishing a mediation effect. The significance

of the direct effect determines the type of effect and or mediation; full or partial. A full mediation occurs when

a direct effect is not significant, whereas the indirect effect is significant indicating that effect of the exogenous

variable on the endogenous variable is completely transmitted with the help of the mediating variable (Carrión

et al., 2017). The mediating variable was work supervisor-provided resources which was examined on the

responsible leadership and intrapreneurial behaviours in PLS- SEM model to ascertain a more complete picture

of the mechanisms through which responsible leadership affects intrapreneurial behaviours (Hair et al., 2021;

Nitzl et al., 2016; Zhao et al., 2010).

Ethical Issues

According to Awases (2006), ethics is mostly associated with morality and deals with issues of right and wrong

among groups, societyor communities. It is therefore important that everyone who is engaged in research should

be aware of the ethics concern (Rubin & Babbie, 2016). The researcher employed every effort as far as possible

to avoid violation of ethical principles. Edginton et al. (2012) have identified the basic ethical consideration for

research as; respondents being fully informed about the aims, methods and benefits of the research, granting

voluntary consent and maintaining the right of withdrawal. In line with this claim, the rationale for the study,

assurance of confidentiality and the right of withdrawal was explained to the participants. Also, a letter of

introduction elucidating the intent and authenticity of the study was sought from the Department of Business

Studies of the College of Distance Education. This letter was introduced to the respondents who want to establish

the authenticity of the study.

Chapter Summary

This chapter has provided information on how the primary data for the study was collected, organised, analysed

and presented for easy comprehension. This chapter also presented information on the design of the study and

scientific approach it took in terms of approach to data needs, statistical techniques and systematic enquiry into

the investigation under consideration.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Introduction

This chapter discussed the study’s findings in relation to the research objectives. The chapter specifically

discussed the respondents’ demographic characteristics. The chapter further presented the results on the research

objectives using the partial least squares (PLS) approach to structural equation modelling (SEM). The results

were presented in tables and figures and discussed thereof.

Page 2059

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

The demographic characteristics of the employees in the company were discussed in this section. The section

specifically focused on respondents’, gender, age, academic qualification, number of years worked in the

Guinness Ghana Ltd. Table 1 was used to summarise the background characteristics of the respondents.

Concerning gender of the respondents, majority, 227(63.1%), of the respondents were males, while 133(36.9%)

were females. This result implies than there are more males working in the company that females.

In terms of age group of the respondents, Table 1 revealed that majority 244(67.8%) of them are between the ages

of 31 to 45 years, while 70(19.4%) of them were between the ages of 18 to 30 years, 41(11.4%) were between the

ages of 46 to 60 years and 5(1.4%) were above 60 years. This means that, majority of the respondents are within

the ages of 18 to 45 years and as such fall within their active working periods. This implies that, majority of the

employees are highly energetic and actively working. Thus, availability of more training programmes would

help them to easily build their work experience levels and invariably become key assets of the company.

Table 1: Demographic characteristics of respondents

Category

Gender

Frequency

Percent %

Male

227

133

360

63.1

36.9

100

Female

Total

Age Group

18-30

70

244

41

5

19.4

67.8

11.4

1.4

31-45

46-60

Over 60

Total

360

100.0

Educational Qualification

Secondary

Diploma/HND

Undergraduate

Masters

30

8.3

180

141

9

50

39.2

2.5

Total

360

100.0

Number of years working with the company

Below 2 years

114

38

31.7

10.6

3 – 5

Page 2060

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

6 – 8

88

24.4

9 years and above

Total

120

360

33.3

100.0

Source: Field Data (2021)

On the issue of academic qualifications, majority 180(50%) of the respondents had HND qualification. Also,

141(39.2%) of the respondents had first degree, 30 (8.3%) had secondary education, whiles 9(2.5%) master’s

degree qualification. This means that, all the respondents have undergone formal education with majority of

them having tertiary education. The respondents were asked to indicate the number of years they had been

working with the company. From the Table 1, majority 120(33.3%) of the respondents have worked for the

company for over 9 years. This was followed by 114(31.7%) of the respondents who indicated that they have

worked for less than 2 years. Furthermore, 88 (24.4%) of them indicated that they have been working in the

company for about 6 to 8 years, while 38(10.6%) of respondents said that they have been working for about 3 to

5 years.

Responsible Leadership, Supervisor-provided resources and Intrapreneurship Behaviour

This section discussed the results of the study’s research objectives. This was achieved by first and foremost

assessing the measurement model of the PLS-SEM. After the measurement model assessment, the study

presented and discussed the results of each research objective.

Measurement Model Assessment

The study analysed the research objectives using the Partial Least Square-Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-

SEM) analytical approach. The assessment was done based on the following key underlying assumptions: item

loadings, construct reliability and validity, convergent validity (average variance extracted) and discriminant

validity. According to Henseler et al. (2015), these assumptions are tested to provide clear meaning of the

structural model results including the validity and reliability of the study.

Item Loading

In terms of assessing the item loadings as the first mode of assessment, the indicators’ loadings of each construct

were evaluated. Based on the rule of thumb, items with loadings ≥ 0.70 is a quality measure of its construct

(Henseler et al., 2009). In view of this, items of each construct with loadings <0.7 were removed from the model.

The result was presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Final model extracted Source: Field Data (2021)

It could be deduced from the figure that all item loadings <0.7 were removed to indicate the quality measures of

a given construct. As a result, the final model extracted served as a basis for further assessment of the PLS-SEM.

Page 2061

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Construct Reliability and Validity

Table 2 presented the results of other assessment criteria including construct reliability and validity and

convergent validity (average variance extracted).

Table 2: Construct Reliability and Validity

Constructs

CA

rho_A

CR

CV (AVE)

0.691

Supervisor- provided resources

Intrapreneurship Behaviour

Responsible Leadership

0.934 0.943

0.954 0.956

0.935 0.939

0.946

0.961

0.944

0.730

0.606

Notes: CA – Cronbach’s alpha; CR – Composite reliability; CV – Convergent validity, AVE – Average Variance

Extracted

Source: Field Data (2021)

From Table 2, indicator reliability (IR) which shows the proportion of variance of an indicator that can be

described by its underlying latent variable (Hair et al., 2016) was assessed using the Cronbach’s alpha (CA)

result and rho_A result. The study reported the rho_A result because it is regarded as a much more rigorous

measure of indicator reliability as compared to the CA (Hair et al., 2016). It could be deduced that, all the rho_A

scores for the constructs were > 0.70 that is, ranging from 0.937 to 0.938, thus met the reliability criteria. Table

2 also presented the composite reliability of the study to explain the extent to which specific constructs are

sufficiently measured by their indicators when put together (Ringle et al., 2012). This means that, CR requires

all the indicators assigned to a given construct to have a strong mutual correlation. The rule of thumb is that, CR

scores should be ≥ 0.70 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988; Ringle et al., 2012). It could be seen that this criterion was met

since the CR score of each construct was >0.7. This means that all the assigned indicators had strong mutual

relationships with their respective constructs.

The convergent validity (CV) of the study based on the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) score (Hair et al.,

2016) was presented in Table 2. The rule of thumb is that, all the AVE scores should have a minimum threshold

≥ 0.50 for each construct (Hair et al., 2016). It could be deduced that the study met this criterion as all the

constructs had AVE scores > 0.50.

Discriminant Validity

Table 3 further presented the quality of the model by testing for discriminant validity as suggested by Hair et al.

(2016). According to Hair et al. (2016), discriminant validity (DV) assesses the structural model for collinearity

issues. The DV is primarily tested using the Fornell and Larcker (1981) criterion and the Heterotrait-Monotrait

(HTMT) ratio. It is to note that, the HTMT ratio is regarded as a better and quality measure of discriminant

validity (DV) as compared to the Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) criterion (Hair et al., 2016) thus recommended

for testing DV by Sarstedt, Ringle, Smith, Reams and Hair (2014). As such, the study assessed the DV using the

HTMT score.

Table 3: Discriminant Validity: Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT)

Intrapreneurial Behaviour Responsible Leadership Supervisor- provided Resources

Intrapreneurial Behaviour

Responsible Leadership

0.530

0.483

Supervisor-provided

Resources

0.802

Source: Field Data (202)

Page 2062

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

The HTMT ratio shows superior performance by having the ability to detect a lack of discriminant validity in

common research scenarios. The rule of thumb is that; to achieve DV, HTMT values (correlation values among

the latent variables) should be < 0.85. From Table 3, all the values for each of the constructs were below HTMT^.85.

This is a clear indication that each construct is truly distinct from the other. After these basic assessments, the

study followed up with the analysis of the research objectives in the next section.

Structural Model

After the measurement model was assessed to ensure that it meets the PLS-SEM criterion, the study presented

the results of the research objectives 1, 2, 3 and 4. This was done by assessing the direction and strength using the

path coefficient (β) and level of significance with t-statistics obtained through 5000 bootstraps as recommended

by Hair et al. (2016). The result of the objectives was presented in Table 4.

Table 4: Result of Structural Equation Model

Structural path

RL -> IB

(β)

T-Stats

P-values

0.000

Hypotheses Decision

0.374 4.754

0.769 34.731

0.172 2.183

H1

H2

H3

H4

Supported

RL -> SPR

SPR -> IB

0.000

0.030

RL -> SPR -> IB 0.132 2.144

0.032

Note: * = P<0.05; RL – Responsible leadership; SPR – Supervisor-provided resources; IB – Intrapreneurship

Behaviour

Source: Field Data (2021)

It is to note that, the result of the structural equation model as presented in Table 4 and was used to discuss the

study’s research objectives in the subsequent sub-sections. The results were presented based on the t-stat with

corresponding p-values < 0.05. Also, the path coefficients were explained based on the criteria by Cohen (1988).

He suggested that correlation coefficients of 0.10 represents weak or small correlation; a correlation coefficient

of 0.30 represents a moderate correlation while correlation coefficient of 0.50 represents a large or strong

correlation.

DISCUSSION

The specific objective of the study along with their corresponding hypothesis were discussed in this section.

Influence of Responsible Leadership on Intrapreneurship Behaviour

The study’s research objective one focused on examining the influence of responsible leadership on employees’

intrapreneurship behaviour at the Guinness Ghana Ltd. From Table 4, the result revealed that responsible

leadership has a significant positive influence on intrapreneurship behaviour (β= 0.374; t = 4.754; p = 0.000 <

0.05). This is because, the t-stat of the model was 4.754 which is greater than 1.96. Hence, the study revealed that

responsible leadership significantly affects the Intrapreneurship Behaviour of the employees at the Guinness

Ghana Ltd. From the β result, the study found a positive relationship between the exogenous and endogenous

variables with a score of 0.374. This means that a unit increase in the traits of responsible leadership will lead to

a moderate unit increase in employees’ Intrapreneurship Behaviour by 37.4%.

Based on the result, management and various supervisors in the company should emphasise on developing their

responsible leadership traits when they intend to improve upon the intrapreneurship behaviour of the employees.

With the responsible leadership provided by the various supervisors of the sections, units and departments of the

Page 2063

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

company, the employees will feel motivated to engage in intrapreneurship behaviours such as being proactive,

innovative and take calculated risk that promote the overall growth of the company. Since responsible leaders

motivate and encourage employees to commit to long-term goals, initiate creative ideas and craft different ways

of doing things (Qu et al., 2015), the employees in light of the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) will

reciprocate to the company by demonstrating intrapreneurial behaviours. These behaviours of the employees

could enhance new product creation, modification and improvement in the business model of the company

((Asencio, 2016; Edú Valsania et al., 2014). The Guinness Ghana company will also benefit from the

proactiveness of the employees as major issues that may emerge to soil the integrity of the company will be

identified and resolved by the employees. The study also is supported by the position held by Yaffe and Kark

(2011) who proclaimed that responsible leaders provide sustainable values and prioritises employees first as well

as set an example of intrapreneurship behaviours for the employees which cause employees to be intrapreneurial.

Influence of Responsible Leadership on Supervisor-provided resources

The study’s research objective two focused on examining the influence of responsible leadership on work

supervisor-provided resources at the Guinness Ghana Ltd. From Table 4, the result revealed that responsible

leadership has a significant positive influence on supervisor-provided resources (β = 0.769; t = 34.731; p = 0.000

< 0.05). This is because, the t-stat of the model was 34.731 which is greater than 1.96. Hence, the study revealed

that responsible leadership significantly affects the Intrapreneurship Behaviour of the employees at the Guinness

Ghana Ltd. From the β result, the study found a positive relationship between the exogenous and endogenous

variables with a score of 0.769. This means that a unit increase in the traits of responsible leadership will lead to

a moderate unit increase in work supervisor-provided resources by 76.9%.

This finding is not surprising because responsible leaders have the edge to seek the overall development of

stakeholders (employees, shareholder and community) in matters of proving information and resources to

address the stakeholder needs (Pless & Maak, 2011). The conclusion drawn from the findings again suggest that

responsible leaders are phenomenal at treating the employees to be responsible themselves and by that extent

offer the employees love, improve their conditions and sometimes financial compensations (Lemmon et al.,

2016). The study supports that of Lips-Wiersma and Wright’s (2012) who found that responsible leadership

contribute to supervisor-provided resources by fostering greater relatedness, as well as perceptions ofcompetence

and autonomy, among the followers.

Influence of Supervisor-provided Resources on Intrapreneurship Behaviour

The study’s research objective three focused on examining the effect of influence of supervisor-provided

resources on intrapreneurship behaviour. From Table 4, the result revealed that supervisor-provided resources

has a significant positive influence on intrapreneurship behaviour (β = 0.172; t = 2.183; p = 0.030 < 0.05). This

is because, the t-stat of the model was 2.183 which is greater than 1.96. Hence, the study revealed that supervisor-

provided resources significantly influenced the intrapreneurship behaviour of employees in Guinness Ghana Ltd.

From the β, the study found a positive relationship between the exogenous and endogenous variables with a

score of 0.172. This means that a unit increase in supervisor-provided resources will lead to an increase in

intrapreneurship behaviour by 17.2%.

Inferences drawn from the finding indicate that because supervisors are the central huma face in an organisation,

they possess more influence over resources under their control. Particularly, employees cherish affection and

good relationship as well as sufficient information towards the execution oftheir roles (Rabbani et al., 2017). Thus,

when management of Guinness Ghana Ltd wishes to steer the intrapreneurial spirit from their employees it

should emphasise showing love and affection to employees, recognise them, provide complete information, work

with them, have confidence employees’ abilities and increase financial compensation. Furthermore, because

supervisors are front side of the organisation, any initiatives they take in form of providing right resources to the

employees will incite them to demonstrate intrapreneurial behaviours (Hannah et al., 2014).

Mediating Role of Supervisor-provided resources in the Relationship Between Responsible Leadership

and Intrapreneurship Behaviour

Page 2064

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

The final objective of the study examined the role supervisor-provided resources plays in mediating the

relationship between responsible leadership and intrapreneurship behaviour. To reiterate the argument advanced

by Nitzl et al. (2016), the authors noted that mediation exist in a structural model when the direct (even though

not a necessary condition) and indirect (necessary) effects are significant. From Table 4, since there exist both

direct and indirect significant positive effect of responsible leadership on intrapreneurship behaviour, conclusion

can be reached that work supervisor-provided resources mediates the relationship between responsible leadership

on intrapreneurship behaviour. Thus, the indirect effect (RL -> SPR -> IB; β = 0.132; t = 2.144; p = 0.032 < 0.05)

was confirmed significant.

The revelation obtained from the results of the study is that although responsible leadership can influence

intrapreneurship behaviour of employees in the company, such influence can be improved when the employees

perceive adequate presence of supervisor-provided resources. Concisely, employees will demonstrate improved

behaviours of proactiveness, innovation and risktaking when responsible leadership along with supervisor-

provided resources are both present in the organisation. Generally, employees who are highly involved in their

jobs tend to find their jobs satisfying and meaningful (Sharma et al., 2012) and by extension are involved in the

work by sparing time thinking of how best they can do their work and achieve desired results.

Empirically, previous studies suggested that beside leadership, other factors can be strong contributors to

employee extra behaviour including intrapreneurial behaviours (Akram, Lei, Haider & Hussain, 2018).

Responsible leadership helps organisation members go the extra mile beyond their defined responsibilities and

enrich their beliefs about their core competencies and capabilities to complete the assigned task in innovative and

creative ways. Thus, conclusion can be reached from the finding that when responsible leaders leverage on the

traits to knowledge sharing, loving employees, and believe in employee, these behaviours will eventually lead

to intrapreneurial behaviours (Kuo et al., 2014),

Explanation of Target Endogenous Variable Variance

The PLS-SEM estimation for the predictive accuracy of the modelusing the coefficient of determination (R²) was

reported in this section. Also, the study reported other relevant estimations including effect size (f²) and predictive

relevance (Q²) using the Stone-Giesser’s test criterion. The results were presented in Table 5.

Table 5: Explanation of Target Endogenous Variable Variance

2

R²Adjusted

0.264

2

R

Q

f

RL -> IB

0.268

0.192

0.078

0.016

1.447

SPR -> IB

RL -> SPR

0.591

0.590

0.402

Note: R²= R squared, f²= effect size, Q²= predictive relevance Source: Field Data (2021)

Coefficient of Determination

According to Hair et al. (2016), coefficient of determination (R²) shows the combined effect of the exogenous

variables (RL and SPR) on the endogenous variable (IB). According to Chuan and Penyelidikan (2006), R²

explains the variation in the dependent variable which is caused by the independent variables. It is basically

assessed using the R square and R Square Adjusted (preferred) measure. Using Henseler et al.’s (2015) criterion,

exogenous variables in the inner path with R²results of >0.67, 0.67<p>0.29 and <0.29 imply that the model is

substantial, moderate and weak, respectively.

From Table 5, the coefficient of determination based on the R Square result was 0.268. This means that the

responsible leadership and supervisor- provided resources put together moderately explain 26.8% of the variation

in intrapreneurship behaviour. Again, responsible leadership accounted for 0.591(59.1%) of variation in work

Page 2065

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

supervisor-provided resources in the company.

Effect size (f2)

The effect size (f²) of each exogenous variable was assessed. This was done based on Cohen’s (1988) impact

indicator criterion where values 0.35 (large), 0.15 (medium) and 0.02 (small) respectively. In respect of the effect

size, this study averred that responsible leadership (f²=0.078) and supervisor- provided resources (f²=0.016)

caused small statistically significant positive variance in intrapreneurship behaviour respectively while

responsible leadership leads to a large significant change in supervisor-provided resources (f²=1.447). The result

implies that, when the responsible leadership traits and supervisor-provided resources policies are implemented

by the management of the Guinness Ghana Ltd would have the higher effect on employee intrapreneurship

behaviour.

2

Predictive Relevance (Q )

The study also assessed the predictive relevance of the predictor exogenous latent variables using the Stone-

Geisser’s Q²test (Roldán & Sanchez-Franco, 2012). Hair et al. (2014) explained that predictive relevance (Q²)

is assessed by omitting part of the data matrix, estimating the model and predicting the omitted part using the

estimates. The rule of thumb is that, Q²value > 0 for the exogenous variables (Henseler et al., 2009; Chin, 2010)

are recommended. Henseler et al. (2009) provided Q²values criteria; 0.02 ≤ Q²<0.15 (weak effect), 0.15≤ Q²<

0.35 (moderate effect) and Q²>0.35 (strong effect). It could be seen that all the exogenous variables were able to

moderately and substantially predict the model respectively. This is because, the Q²of the exogenous variables

were 0.192 (intrapreneurship behaviour) and 0.402 (supervisor-provided resources), that is; 0.15≤Q²<0.35 thus

indicating moderate and substantial predictive relevance respectively.

Chapter Summary

The chapter presented the results and discussion of the study’s research objectives. The PLS-SEM technique was

used for objectives. The study found responsible leadership and supervisor-provided resources to significantly

and positively affect the intrapreneurship behaviour of employees. Again, supervisor-provided resources

mediated the nexus of responsible leadership and intrapreneurship behaviour. The next chapter focused on the

summary, conclusions and recommendations of the study.

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Overview

This chapter presents the key findings of the research objectives of the study, conclusions drawn from the

findings and recommendations for policy considerations. The chapter also provided suggestions for further

research. The study was thrived with conceptual opinions in relation to the significant contributions of employee

at the Guinness Ghana Ltd. The study was also conducted to ascertain the role of supervisor-provided resources

in the responsible leadership and the intrapreneurial behaviour nexus. With this purpose, specific objectives were

designed to be achieved. These were to: examine the influence of responsible leadership on intrapreneurial

behaviour; analyse the influence of responsible leadership on supervisor-provided resources; examine the

influence of supervisor-provided resources on the intrapreneurial behaviour of employees; and analyse the

mediating role of supervisor-provided resources in the relationship between responsible leadership and

intrapreneurial behaviour.

The study relied on the quantitative approach and correlational design. A structured questionnaire was developed

from extensive reviews of previous studies to gather data from 360 employees of the Guinness Ghana Ltd. The

data was then processed using the IBM SPSS programme (version 25 and Smart- PLS (version 3) software.

Inferential statistics (through partial least squares structural equation modelling) was used to address the

objectives of the study.

Page 2066

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Summary

In relation to research objective one, the findings indicated that responsible leadership has a significant positive

influence on intrapreneurial behaviour of the employees in the company. The result implied that, a unit increase

in the responsible leadership could lead to an increase in the intrapreneurial behaviour.

The second objective addressed the influence of responsible leadership on supervisor-provided resources. The

results revealed that responsible leaders play a significant role in influencing the supervisor-provided resources

in the company.

The third research objective focused on examining the influence of supervisor-provided resources on

intrapreneurial behaviour. The study found that supervisor-provided resources had a significant positive

influence on intrapreneurial behaviour of the employees at the Guinness Ghana Ltd. It was suggested that

management of the company should lay emphasis on improving the supervisor-provided resources of the

employees in the bid to increase the employees’ intrapreneurial behaviour.

The final research objective investigated the mediating role of supervisor-provided resources in the nexus

between responsible leadership and intrapreneurial behaviour. The findings demonstrated that supervisor-

provided resources mediated the nexus between responsible leadership and intrapreneurial behaviour.

Conclusions

The purpose ofthe studywas to investigate the influence ofresponsible leadership and employees’ intrapreneurial

behaviour at the Guinness Ghana Ltd through the intervening role of supervisor-provided resources. Based on

the findings, some conclusions were drawn. These conclusions have provided significant insights to managers

and policy makers in the production sector in the Ghanaian economy and beyond. Within the contemporary

business environment, good leadership have been the centre of business success and firms should not tilt this

fact by ignoring the importance responsible leadership required for stimulating the intrapreneurial or extra role

behaviours the employees. Although these intrapreneurial behaviours are not prescribed in the employment

contract, the performance of them by employees will place the company in a competitive advantage. Specifically,

the conclusions based on each objective were made as follows:

First, the study concludes that responsible leadership traits exhibited my managers, supervisors of the company

is crucial for promoting employee intrapreneurial behaviour. This is because employee’s intrapreneurial

behaviours do not only cause growth to the company, but also improves the competences of the employees

towards creativity. Furthermore, conclusion was drawn on the second objective that responsible leadership is a

key predictor of supervisor-provided resources in the manufacturing sector.

Thirdly, the study concludes that supervisor-provided resources is a significant factor in attracting employees’

intrapreneurial behaviour. The result has largely been supported by previous empirical studies which indicated

that managers or supervisors should emphasise on improving its supervisor- provided resources traits. Once that

is done, intrapreneurial behaviour of the employees follows. Finally, the study established that, intrapreneurial

behavior through responsible leadership can be improved when there are significant resources provided by

supervisors.

Recommendations

On the strength of the research findings and conclusions made, the following recommendations are made:

First, the study recommends that the management of Guinness Ghana Ltd and other organisations should

emphasise nurturing responsible leadership traits of the supervisors or leaders of respective departments in

company. This can be done through seminars, conferences, meetings, and training workshops towards improving

responsible leadership traits.

The study also recommends that management of company should deploy strategies to addressing the supervisor-

provided resources. This can be done by attaching feedback to work, recognising the employees, providing sick

Page 2067

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

leaves and placing the employees on challenging task to improve. These practices will eventually lead the

employees to reciprocate to the organisation with intrapreneurial behaviour.

Suggestions for Further Research

The study was conducted to ascertain the influence of responsible leadership on intrapreneurial behaviour of

employees at the Guinness Ghana Ltd. Clearly, the study focused on one company. As a result, generalising the

study’s findings to cover the entire production or manufacturing sector across the country could be misleading.

The study, therefore, suggested that further research can extend the study area to capture other companies in the

sector within the country in order to aid generalisation of findings.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would first of all appreciate my supervisor, Professor Abraham Ansong for his support, encouragement and

guidance in helping put this work to its current state. I am very grateful to his constructive criticisms to every

detail of this dissertation.

I also express my gratitude to the management and staff of Guinness Ghana Ltd for the authority and cooperation

throughout the data collection. I am also indebted to all respondents who made themselves available to respond

to the questionnaires.

Finally, I am grateful to all individuals unnamed, who have helped in diverse ways to the successful completion

of this dissertation.

Dedication

To my caring and supportive family

REFERENCES

1. Agarwal, R., & Helfat, C. E. (2009). Strategic renewal of organizations. Organization science,

20(2), 281-293.

2. Akram, T., Lei, S., Haider, M. J., & Hussain, S. T. (2018). Exploring the impact of knowledge sharing on

the innovative work behavior of employees: A study in China. International Business Research, 11(3),

186-194.

3. Alambeigi, A., Mohammadi, M., Asadi, A., & Zarei, B. (2012). The exploration of organization factors

that inspire intrapreneurship in Iranian agricultural research organization (IARO). African Journal of

Agricultural Research, 7(3), 378–384.

4. Amankwaa, A., Gyensare, M. A., & Susomrith, P. (2019). Transformational leadership with innovative

behaviour: Examining multiple mediating paths with PLS-SEM. Leadership & Organization

Development Journal.

5. Antoncic, B., & Hisrich, R. D. (2001). Intrapreneurship: Construct refinement and cross-cultural

validation. Journal of business venturing, 16(5), 495- 527.

6. Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive

forms of leadership. The leadership quarterly, 16(3), 315-338.

7. Blanka, C. (2019). An individual-level perspective on intrapreneurship: a review and ways forward.

Review of Managerial Science, 13(5), 919- 961.

8. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Wiley: New York

9. Bushra, F., Ahmad, U., & Naveed, A. (2011). Effect of transformational leadership on employees' job

satisfaction and organizational commitment in banking sector of Lahore (Pakistan). International journal

of Business and Social science, 2(18).

10. Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (2019). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior.

Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 16(1), 7-26.

11. Curcuruto, M., & Griffin, M. A. (2018). Prosocial and proactive “safety citizenship behaviour” (SCB):

The mediating role of affective commitment and psychological ownership. Safety science, 104, 29-38.

Page 2068

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

12. Farrukh, M., Lee, J. W. C., & Shahzad, I. A. (2019). Intrapreneurial behavior in higher education institutes

of Pakistan: The role of leadership styles and psychological empowerment. Journal of Applied Research

in Higher Education.

13. Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C. C., Davis, K. M., & Dickens, M. P. (2011). Authentic leadership: a review

of the literature and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1120–1145

14. Gawke, J. C., Gorgievski, M. J., & Bakker, A. B. (2019). Measuring intrapreneurship at the individual

level: Development and validation of the Employee Intrapreneurship Scale (EIS). European Management

Journal, 37(6), 806-817.

15. Gerards, R., van Wetten, S., & van Sambeek, C. (2020). New ways of working and intrapreneurial

behaviour: the mediating role of transformational leadership and social interaction. Review of

Managerial Science, 1-36.

16. Groves, R. M., Fowler Jr, F. J., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R. (2011).

Survey methodology (Vol. 561). John Wiley & Sons.

17. Havi, E. D. K., & Enu, P. (2014). The effect of fiscal policy and monetary policy on Ghana’s economic

growth: which policy is more potent. International Journal of Empirical Finance, 3(2), 61-75.

18. Heinze, K. L., & Weber, K. (2016). Toward organizational pluralism: Institutional intrapreneurship in

integrative medicine. Organization Science, 27(1), 157-172.

19. Jones, O., & Crompton, H. (2009). Enterprise logic and small firms: a model of authentic entrepreneurial

leadership. Journal of Strategy and Management, 2(4), 329–351

20. Jong, J. P. D., Parker, S. K., Wennekers, S., & Wu, C. H. (2015). Entrepreneurial behavior in organizations:

does job design matter? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(4), 981-995.

21. Knies, E., & Leisink, P. (2014). Leadership behavior in public organizations: A study of supervisory

support by police and medical center middle managers. Review of public personnel administration, 34(2),

108-127.

22. Lemmon, G., Glibkowski, B. C., Wayne, S. J., Chaudhry, A., & Marinova, S. (2016). Supervisor-

provided resources: Development and validation of a measure of employee resources. Journal of

Leadership & Organizational Studies, 23(3), 288-308.

23. Mitteness, C. R., Sudek, R., & Baucus, M. S. (2010). Entrepreneurs as authentic transformational leaders:

critical behaviors for gaining angel capital. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 30(5), 1–16.

24. Moriano, J. A., Molero, F., & JP, L. M. (2011). Authentic leadership. Concept and validation of the ALQ

in Spain. Psicothema, 23(2), 336-341.

25. Moriano, J. A., Molero, F., Topa, G., & Mangin, J. P. L. (2014). The influence of transformational

leadership and organizational identification on intrapreneurship. International entrepreneurship and

management journal, 10(1), 103-119.

26. Mueller, J., Renzl, B., & Will, M. G. (2020). Ambidextrous leadership: A meta- review applying static

and dynamic multi-level perspectives. Review of Managerial Science, 14(1), 37-59.

27. Mustafa, M., Gavin, F., & Hughes, M. (2018). Contextual determinants of employee entrepreneurial

behavior in support of corporate entrepreneurship: a systematic review and research agenda. Journal of

Enterprising Culture, 26(03), 285-326.

28. Neessen, P. C., Caniëls, M. C., Vos, B., & De Jong, J. P. (2019). The intrapreneurial employee: toward

an integrated model of intrapreneurship and research agenda. International Entrepreneurship and

Management Journal, 15(2), 545-571.

29. Neessen, P. C., Caniëls, M. C., Vos, B., & De Jong, J. P. (2019). The intrapreneurial employee: toward

an integrated model of intrapreneurship and research agenda. International Entrepreneurship and

Management Journal, 15(2), 545-571.

30. Özsungur, F. (2019). Ethical leadership, intrapreneurship, service innovation performance and work

engagement in chambers of commerce and industry. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social

Environment, 29(8), 1059-1081.

31. Rabbani, S. H., Akram, J., Habib, G., & Sohail, N. (2017). Supervisory support on the organizational

commitment: Role of power distance in the manufacturing sector of Pakistan. Resource, 9(22).

32. Razavi, S. H., & Ab Aziz, K. (2017). The dynamics between entrepreneurial orientation, transformational

leadership, and intrapreneurial intention in Iranian R&D sector. International Journal of Entrepreneurial

Behavior & Research.

33. Rego, A., Sousa, F., Marques, C., Pina, & Cunha, M. (2012). Authentic leadership promoting employees’

Page 2069

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

psychological capital and creativity. Journal of Business Research, 65(3), 429–437.

34. Rigtering, J. C., Weitzel, G. U., & Muehlfeld, K. K. (2019). Increasing quantity without compromising

quality: How managerial framing affects intrapreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 34(2), 224-

241.

35. Rigtering, J. P. C., & Weitzel, U. (2013). Work context and employee behaviour as antecedents for

intrapreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 9(3), 337-360.

36. Rigtering, J. P. C., & Weitzel, U. (2013). Work context and employee behaviour as antecedents for

intrapreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 9(3), 337-360.

37. Seshadri, D. V. R., & Tripathy, A. (2006). Innovation through intrapreneurship: The road less travelled.

Vikalpa, 31(1), 17-30.

38. Sperber, S., & Linder, C. (2018). The impact of top management teams on firm innovativeness: A

configurational analysis of demographic characteristics, leadership style and team power distribution.

Review of Managerial Science, 12(1), 285-316.

39. Stam, E., Bosma, N., Van Witteloostuijn, A., De Jong, J., Bogaert, S., Edwards, N., & Jaspers, F. (2012).

Ambitious entrepreneurship. A Review of the Academic Literature and New Directions for Public Policy,

Report for the Advisory Council for Science and Technology Policy (AWT) and the Flemish Council for

Science and Innovation (VRWI).

40. Stull, M., & Singh, J. (2005). Intrapreneurship in nonprofit organizations examining the factors that

facilitate entrepreneurial behaviour among employees. Retrieved May, 24(2005), 192-210.

41. Valsania, S. E., Moriano, J. A., & Molero, F. (2016). Authentic leadership and intrapreneurial behavior:

cross-level analysis of the mediator effect of organizational identification and empowerment.

International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(1), 131-152.

42. Wennekers, S. (2008). Intrapreneurship; conceptualizing entrepreneurial employee behaviour. Scales

Research Reports, 20-45.

43. Wibowo, A., & Saptono, A. (2018). Does entrepreneurial leadership impact on creativity and innovation

of elementary teachers? Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 21(2), 1-9.

44. Yariv, I., & Galit, K. (2017). Can incivility inhibit intrapreneurship? The Journal of Entrepreneurship,

26(1), 27-50.

45. Zappalà, S., Toscano, F., & Licciardello, S. A. (2019). Towards sustainable organizations: Supervisor

support, commitment to change and the mediating role of organizational identification. Sustainability,

11(3), 805.

46. Zhao, Y., Yan, L., & Keh, H. T. (2018). The effects of employee behaviours on customer participation in

the service encounter: The mediating role of customer emotions. European Journal of Marketing.

Page 2070

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Dissertation submitted to the Department of Business Studies of the College of Distance Education, University

of Cape Coast, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of Master of Business Administration

degree in Human Resource Management

Declaration

Candidate’s Declaration

I hereby declare that this dissertation is the result of my own original research and that no part of it has been

presented for another degree in this university or elsewhere.

Candidate’s Signature: ………………………

Date: ………………….. Candidate’s Name:

Archimedes Oduro

Supervisor’s Declaration

I hereby declare that the preparation and presentation of the dissertation were supervised in accordance with the

guidelines on supervision of dissertation laid down by the University of Cape Coast.

Supervisor’s Signature: ……………………

Date: ………………….. Supervisor’s Name:

Professor Abraham Ansong

Appendix A: Questionnaire University Of Cape Coast College Of Distance Education Department Of

Business Studies

Questionnaire On Responsible Leadership

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am currently conducting a study on “Responsible leadership and intrapreneur behaviour.” I humbly ask for less

than 20 minutes of your busy schedule, to participate in the exercise in response to the objectives of this study.

Any information provided shall remain private. Your selfless contribution towards my academic career is highly

appreciated.

Section A: Demographic Profile Of Participants

Please tick (√) the appropriate response.

1. Gender

Male [ ]

Female

[ ]

2. Age group

Below 18 years [ ]

[ ]

18-30 [ ]

31-45 [ ]

46-60 [ ]

61+

3. Level of education

Secondary [ ]

Diploma [ ]

Undergraduate [ ]

Masters [ ]

PhD [ ]

Page 2071

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

4. Number of years with the organisation Below 2 years [ ]

3 to 5 years [ ]

6 to 8 years [ ]

9 years and above [ ]

Section B: Responsible Leadership

The following questions ask you for your views of responsible leadership. It focuses on particular responses of

the managers’ responsible leadership approach towards the stakeholder or different interest groups (e.g.,

customers and community), human resource practices and managerial support of the organisation. In the scale, 1

indicates least agreement whiles 7 indicates strongly agree. Please circle in the appropriate column.

No. Statement

Scale

1

2

This organisation takes an active role in its community

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

This organisation takes ethics seriously (e.g., is committed to 1

ethics training).

3

4

This organisation responds well to a diverse group of stakeholders 1

(e.g., employees, investors, government or its agencies, owners or

shareholders, suppliers, unions, and the community).

2

3

4

5

6

7

This organisation takes corporate social responsibility seriously 1

(e.g., has a clear policy that reflects its commitment to one or

more social causes).

5

6

7

8

9

Our performance appraisal programs are effectively used to 1

retain the best talent.

2

3

4

5

6

7

Our compensation programs are effectively used to retain the best 1

talent.

Our

organisation believes that all employees deserve 1

to be actively managed as talent

Our organisation’s program (e.g., training or workshops) for 1

high potentials helps in talent retention.

The company has a formal ‘‘high potential’’ program (e.g., 1

training and development for team building or enhancing

leadership skills etc.) - people know what they need to do to get

into it and to advance within it.

10

11

My immediate manager leads by example

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

My immediate manager gives me the support I need to do 1

my job well.

12

13

My immediate manager is effective

My immediate manager is good

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

at developing people.

Page 2072

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Section C: Supervisor-Provided Resources

The following statements describe the items for supervisor-provided resources. As an employee in the sampled

organisation, please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree to the statement. Where 1 indicates least

agreement whiles 7 indicates strongly agree. Please circle the number in the appropriate column.

No

1

Statement

Scale

My supervisor provides complete information to me

My supervisor gives me the things I need to do my job

My supervisor makes time to help me out when needed

My supervisor thinks highly of me

1

2

3 4

5

6 7

2

3

4

5

My supervisor likes working with me.

My supervisor is confident in my abilities

My supervisor increases my pay

6

7

8

My supervisor gets me a raise in my activity.

My supervisor increases my financial compensation.

9

Section D: Intraprenuer Behaviours

The following statements describe the items for intrapreneur behaviours. As an employee in the sampled

organisation, please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree to the statement. Where 1 indicates least

agreement whiles 7 indicates strongly agree. Please circle the number in the appropriate column.

No

Statement

Scale

1

I efficiently get proposed actions through 'bureaucratic red tape' and 1

into practice

2

3

4

5

6

7

2

3

4

5

6

I display an enthusiasm for acquiring skills

1 quickly change course of action when results aren't being achieved 1

1 encourage others to take the initiative for their own ideas

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

I inspire others to think about their work in new and stimulating ways 1

I devote time to helping others find ways to improve our products 1

and services

7

8

I ‘go to bat' for the good ideas of others

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

I boldly move ahead with a promising new approach when others 1

might be more cautious

9

1 vividly describe how things could be in the future and what is 1

needed to get us there.

2

3

4

5

6

7

Page 2073

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

10

11

I get people to rally together to meet a challenge

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

I create an environment where people get excited about making 1

improvements.

Page 2074

www.rsisinternational.org