Management Decision

Transmitting the entrepreneurial spirit to the work team in SMEs: the importance of
leadership
Domingo Ribeiro Soriano, José Manuel Comeche Martínez,
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:14 08 October 2017 (PT)

Article information:
To cite this document:
Domingo Ribeiro Soriano, José Manuel Comeche Martínez, (2007) "Transmitting the entrepreneurial
spirit to the work team in SMEs: the importance of leadership", Management Decision, Vol. 45 Issue: 7,
pp.1102-1122, https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740710773934
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740710773934
Downloaded on: 08 October 2017, At: 00:14 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 36 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 4223 times since 2007*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2007),"Igniting the entrepreneurial spirit: is the role parents play gendered?", International
Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour &amp; Research, Vol. 13 Iss 1 pp. 39-59 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/13552550710725174">https://doi.org/10.1108/13552550710725174</a>
(2003),"SME management and leadership development: market reorientation", Journal of Management
Development, Vol. 22 Iss 9 pp. 796-808 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710310495784">https://
doi.org/10.1108/02621710310495784</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:543713 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0025-1747.htm

MD
45,7 Transmitting the entrepreneurial
spirit to the work team in SMEs:
the importance of leadership
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:14 08 October 2017 (PT)

1102
Domingo Ribeiro Soriano and José Manuel Comeche Martı́nez
University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain

Abstract
Purpose – To establish the extent of the influence of variables which, under a particular style of
leadership, form the necessary basis for encouraging and developing group, entrepreneurial activities
carried out within the context of small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) thus explaining the
transmission of the entrepreneurial spirit to the work team and, consequently, the existence of
collective entrepreneurship in the firm.
Design/methodology/approach – From the results of a questionnaire carried out via personal
interviews with over 100 firms, a confirmatory factorial analysis was carried out that provided us with
the variables to be studied. The cause/effect relationships and their implications were obtained from
applying a LISREL8 analysis.
Findings – A leadership based on relationships shows a positive impact, with an intensity of more
than double that of participative leadership. A task-oriented leadership style reduces the chances of
transmitting the entrepreneurial spirit to the work team by having a negative influence on the
generation of collective entrepreneurship in the firm.
Research limitations/implications – The models contain the relations of “causality” between
these latent variables, assuming that the variables observed therein are indicators or symptoms of
those other variables. This could be considered as a limitation to our analysis as the study of
covariance.
Practical implications – The model has important applications for the process of incorporating
new CEOs into the organization.
Originality/value – This paper presents confirmation of the need for aspects traditionally
associated with the figure of the entrepreneur to be transmitted to the organization’s collective as a
whole and for the existence of collective entrepreneurship: an area of management that has thus far
received relatively little attention and which could have important practical implications.
Keywords Entrepreneurialism, Team working, Leadership, Small to medium-sized enterprises
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
When analysis began on the qualitative aspects of entrepreneurship back in the 1960s
(McClelland, 1961; Collins and Moore, 1964), researchers focused their attention on
determining the psychological characteristics and factors of personality to distinguish
entrepreneurs from non-entrepreneurs, and those who were likely to be successful in
business from those who were not (Gibb, 1990; Amit et al., 1993). It is unlikely that the
functions of an entrepreneur are carried out by a single individual in a firm. This might
possibly be the case of microfirms (firms with less than ten workers), as there is a
Management Decision reduced degree of complexity and the owner is capable of controlling the majority of
Vol. 45 No. 7, 2007
pp. 1102-1122 aspects surrounding the firm’s activity. This is not true, though, of bigger businesses
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited and even less so in those in the category of large enterprises, where the existence of
0025-1747
DOI 10.1108/00251740710773934 work teams is necessary to ensure that these functions are carried out with a certain
 guarantee of success. We will see, throughout this paper, the confirmation of the need Importance of
for aspects traditionally associated with the figure of the entrepreneur to be leadership
transmitted to the organization’s collective as a whole and for the existence of collective
entrepreneurship.

The entrepreneurial spirit and the work team

Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:14 08 October 2017 (PT)

Individual entrepreneurship does not add up to collective entrepreneurship, but a small

1103
business owner can affect the behaviour and attitudes of subordinates to create the
conditions for increasing collective entrepreneurship (Lounsbury, 1998). Therefore, a
strong entrepreneurial leader should influence the organization, thus making it more
entrepreneurial as a whole.
In relation to collective entrepreneurship (Stewart, 1989), it can be stated that “the
concept of entrepreneurial teams of employees may be rather unconventional, but it is
consistent with the opportunity-centred interpretation of entrepreneurship”. This
interpretation does not centre on individuals and personalities. So, the concept of
collective entrepreneurship redirects attention away from popularly held conceptions
of the “entrepreneur as hero” (Reich, 1987), focusing attention on the work team,
bearing in mind that the fundamental aspects of the work team are that of creativity
and innovation. Good collaboration reflects the ability for people to work together for
their mutual benefit (Haskins et al., 1998; Scott, 1999). Therefore, the capability and
creativity of one individual entrepreneur is always limited. Working together,
members of an SME (small to medium-sized enterprise) could also contribute to
innovation. Small business owners might benefit from giving more consideration to a
leadership role that contributes profoundly to the innovation performance of the small
business than its entrepreneurship role. In short, collective entrepreneurship must
emerge from the collaboration of individuals, not from coercion or contracts. Moreover,
there is no guarantee that entrepreneurship at an individual level will be automatically
transferred to a collective. Indeed, it is reasonable to suggest that businesses would
profit from creating the conditions of leadership in the organization that are conducive
to enabling the transmission of entrepreneurial spirit from the single, individual
(entrepreneur) to the group or collective (work team). It is our objective to focus our
attention on the leadership conditions that are conducive to the transmission of the
aforementioned entrepreneurial spirit to the work team.

Leadership and the conditions of transmission

Reich (1987) pointed out that collective entrepreneurship does not eliminate the need
for an individual leader. Leaders of such collectively entrepreneurial organizations or
teams understand how to foster creative collaboration (Bennis and Biederman, 1998).
Thus, heads of organizations can encourage others to create remarkable outcomes
through collective collaboration. Stewart (1989) states that “individual leadership is a
crucial part of the entrepreneurial process (of the team)”. Despite arguing that the rate
of change and technological complexity of the modern business world has brought an
end to the idea that we can depend upon a hero figure or leader for outstanding
achievements, Bennis and Biederman (1998) declare, in their study, that “great leaders
are important for the creation of great groups”. However, in our analysis, leaders are
great, not because they are non-conformist, individual or heroic entrepreneurs but
 MD because they can guide their staff towards the achievement of successful results
45,7 through “creative collaboration”.
Studies on leadership have identified several leadership styles or behaviours, with
the consequent conclusions on their effectiveness that take into account success on a
collective level (Parker, 1990) and the behaviour of the players involved, as well as
assessments by top level leaders (Yukl, 1998). In our study, we focus on team
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:14 08 October 2017 (PT)

1104 leadership, in other words, the behaviour of work team leaders. In line with the theory
of social learning (Weiss, 1977), we believe that the team leader affects the attitudes
and behaviour of other team members, creating the necessary conditions for relations
of collective entrepreneurship and, therefore, enabling the transmission of the
entrepreneurial spirit to the work team. As we previously suggested, a strong
entrepreneurial leader can influence other individuals so that they too are imbued with
more of an entrepreneurial spirit. However, individuals alone do not make up the
ingredients of collective entrepreneurship (Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars, 1995).
Together with the help of orientation from the firm, team leaders must create a context
that allows relations of collective entrepreneurship to emerge. However, it should be
stressed that different styles of leadership can have different influences on the capacity
to transmit the entrepreneurial spirit and thus, here we compile some of the
predominant leadership styles (Morrison, 2000; Sorenson, 2000): relationship-oriented
(such as doing personal favours for subordinates, looking out for their welfare or
accepting their suggestions), task-oriented (such as maintaining performance, asking
subordinates to follow standard procedures and regulations and making them see the
importance of meeting deadlines) and participative leadership (encouraging and
facilitating the participation of subordinates in making decisions that would ordinarily
be made by the leader alone). These ideas are expressed in Figure 1.
Leadership styles will either help to facilitate or discourage the building of such
competences within small businesses (Bennis and Biederman, 1998). An entrepreneur
is able to adopt certain leadership styles or behaviour to encourage employees to work

Figure 1.
Influence of leadership in
transmitting
entrepreneurial spirit to
the work team
 together to generate innovation for small businesses (Lee et al., 2005). Leadership styles Importance of
could help to promote small business innovation but such a relationship is mediated by leadership
collaboration among members of a small business. According to Yukl (1998),
leadership contribution to team or organizational outcomes is mediated by
subordinates’ attitudes and their level of cooperative behaviour. Bennis and
Biederman (1998) point out that organizational experts make sacrifices to ensure a
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:14 08 October 2017 (PT)

cooperative atmosphere. We propose that leadership styles do not directly affect the 1105
innovation outcomes of a small business, although their contribution to small business
innovation is mediated by collaboration among members of that business.

Relationship-oriented leadership
Studies show that leaders who adopt a relationship-oriented style are truly interested
in people and their social interaction (Sorenson, 2000). Such leaders tend to provoke an
increase in collaboration and team work, have a strong identification with the
organization and the team, and are committed to producing satisfactory outcomes. Key
behavioural components of a relationship-based leadership style include: support,
development, recognition and consultation of other individuals (Yukl, 1998). In the
analysis of behaviour associated with a relationship-oriented leadership style, it has
come to light that support is closely related to positive attitude and behaviour on the
part of the subordinate and to interactive behaviour between collaborators/work
colleagues. In addition, it is possible that the subordinate will then imitate the leader’s
supportive behaviour (Weiss, 1977) and so offer positive support and an efficient
working relationship to others, thereby achieving an approximation to creative
collaboration (Haskins et al., 1998).
The tendency of a relationship-based leadership style to develop, recognize and
reward subordinates increases the likelihood of achieving greater commitment to the
team and its tasks, as well as the willingness and satisfaction of contributing to the
team’s success. This reasoning leads to the following hypotheses on team leadership
and collective entrepreneurship.
H1. A relationship-oriented leadership style will positively enhance the chances of
transmitting the entrepreneurial spirit to the work team.

Task-oriented leadership
Task-oriented leaders put all their efforts into functions aimed at carrying out tasks
such as: planning or organization, activities related to coordination and providing the
necessary help, as well as supplying equipment and technical assistance for
subordinates to carry out their work adequately. Task-oriented leaders structure and
define their own rules and those of their subordinates. They supervise their on-site
subordinates closely, and keep a close check on the fulfilment of pre-established goals
and objectives (Likert, 1961; 1967). Those who adopt a totally task-based leadership
style like to keep their psychological distance from those of inferior rank and often
appear cold and distant (Blau and Scott, 1962), tending simply to ignore feelings and
attitudes towards subordinates. These leaders define the structures where their
inferiors are placed, establish the rules that others follow, explain what to do and how
to do it, determine ways in which tasks are to be completed (Hersey and Blanchard,
1977), and search for new approaches to solving problems. These are all aspects that
increase the likelihood that the subordinate will increasingly depend on the leader and,
 MD therefore, the initiative and creativity of the subordinate becomes nullified.
45,7 Task-oriented leaders can help their subordinates to collaborate through designing
the jobs they are required to perform, along with coordination and other measures,
particularly when the work is carried out in teams and coordination becomes an
essential part of the leader’s function (Yukl, 1998). However, collaboration that is
coordinated and initiated by leaders is often more functional than relational (Bennis
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:14 08 October 2017 (PT)

1106 and Biederman, 1998; Haskins et al., 1998).

They are often the “individual heroes” (Reich, 1987), who are characterized by a
heightened need for achievement (McClelland, 1961), possess an aggressive personality
and demand a high level of autonomy (Downtown, 1973). They contribute to the level
of team (or firm) entrepreneurship (Miller, 1983) as individual businesspeople, though
not as part of collective entrepreneurship. Basing our ideas on the previous
assumptions, we will contrast the following hypothesis, considering the relation
between a task-oriented leader and the collective entrepreneurship of the team.
H2. A task-oriented leadership style will reduce the chances of transmitting the
entrepreneurial spirit to the work team.

Participative leadership
The majority of studies on leadership styles consider “participative leadership” as a
different style to the relation-oriented or task-oriented styles (Bass, 1990). Essentially,
participative management is a style of leadership in which managers share the
decision-making process with other members of the organization. Participative
leadership efficiently guides the leader’s efforts towards motivating and facilitating the
participation of subordinates in making decisions (Harber et al., 1991; Cole et al., 1993),
which, under other circumstances, could be made by the leader alone. Including
subordinates in decision-making is often necessary for decisions to be approved and
seen through to a successful conclusion. Leaders frequently involve subordinates in
making decisions that will directly affect them, inviting individuals to participate in
strategic thinking (Bowen and Lawler, 1995). Participative leadership at the highest
level involves delegating decision-making to subordinates. Participative leaders
motivate subordinates to assume responsibilities for their own work, encouraging,
favouring and rewarding all behaviour and ideas aimed at satisfying the needs of
innovation (Bowen and Lawler, 1992), thereby improving the organization’s
performance (Hermel, 1990). However, Ribeiro (2003a) points out in his analysis of
SMEs that it is functions rather than responsibilities that are delegated.
Participative leaders use groups that help to increase personal interaction between
team members, mutual obligation and responsibility, bringing the team closer together
as a group (McGrath, 1984). Participative leaders often use formal and informal group
meetings in order to facilitate the participation of subordinates in decision-making,
which leads to improvement in communication and enables conflicts to be resolved
(Deakins et al., 2005). In this study, our focus does not focus on how participative
leadership will affect the quality of decisions taken; a research topic widely studied in
the literature on leadership (Vroom and Jago, 1988). We address the question of how
the participative leader will influence the attitudes and interactions of the team, and
consequently influence collective entrepreneurship. Finally, we believe that a
participative style will influence team members so that they become open to the
opinions, ideas and suggestions of others (Weiss, 1977).
 Participative leadership has the potential to positively encourage team members to Importance of
assume positive attitudes toward their work, the team and their leaders. Similarly, leadership
participative leaders have a positive impact on building personal and professional
relationships. This idea can be expressed in the following hypotheses:
H3. A participative leadership style will positively enhance the chances of
transmitting the entrepreneurial spirit to the work team.
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:14 08 October 2017 (PT)

1107

The influence of the entrepreneurial leader on the model

Having put forward these hypotheses, we consider that the relations between the
variables of attitude and behaviour relevant to team members as well as a particular
style of leadership, will have an effect on the basic conditions necessary for
transmitting the entrepreneurial spirit to the work team and, therefore, on the
development of collective entrepreneurship in the firm. Consequently, we feel it is right
to stress the importance of the necessary presence or absence of the entrepreneurial
nature of the leader as the carrier of that spirit of enterprise which is intended to be
transmitted to the group, as well as the need to analyse these variables with a view to
establishing how they are interrelated. In order to be able to name the factors that
explain the existence of collective entrepreneurship in the firm and, therefore, the desire
to transmit the spirit of enterprise within the organization (e.g. innovation-creativity,
pro-activity-autonomy, risk-taking and the search for growth), the inclusion of an
additional variable in our model becomes essential. This will allow us to verify whether
the existence of collective entrepreneurship is dependent upon the presence of an
entrepreneur, a question which is laid down in the following hypothesis:
H4. The probability of transmitting the entrepreneurial spirit to the work team
and, therefore, fomenting the existence of collective entrepreneurship in the
work team is directly and positively associated with the existence of an
entrepreneurial leader.

Method
Sampling procedures and measures
The sample of firms studied was taken from the ARDÁN Business Directory of the
IMPIVA (Valencian Small and Medium-Sized Industrial Institute), where SMEs from
the Valencia region, and other areas of Spain from the industrial, commercial and
service sectors are listed. More than 500 firms were contacted at random, of which only
114 entrepreneurs agreed to be interviewed face-to-face. Before applying the
questionnaire for the purposes of this paper, which was based on others of similar
characteristics (Ribeiro, 2003b, 2004), it was pre-tested by a group of experts made up
of professors and researchers from several members of the Editorial Board of the
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal (Springer). All the members
of this group are experts in this topic and in the field of statistics applied to social
sciences. Once modifications had been made following the suggestions from this team
of experts, we began the field work. The definitive structure of the questionnaire is
shown in the Appendix.
 MD Statistical analysis
45,7 Hypotheses were tested via the following procedures. Firstly, a structural equation
modelling technique was applied to test our hypotheses via path analysis for the
sample of each type of leadership, analysing whether they have a direct impact on the
level of collective entrepreneurship when the leader is an entrepreneur. Using LISREL
8 (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1993), we estimated the parameters of our research model and
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:14 08 October 2017 (PT)

1108 tested the validity of the measurement of whether different leadership styles have an
impact on organizational collective entrepreneurship. This approach enabled a
comprehensive and confirmatory assessment of both the convergent and discriminant
validity of all constructs used in the model. Secondly, the same structural equation
model for the sample of non-entrepreneurial leaders was applied. The approach not
only further validated our measurement model, but also enabled us to compare the
standardized path coefficients across the two samples.

Choice of explanatory observable variables of the latent variables determined in the

model
To successfully develop a model that includes latent variables, it is necessary to
consider a wide variety of potential measurements of the factors in order to then go on
to select a greatly reduced group (two or three per variable) that encompasses all the
relevant information with regard to the latent factor. The most suitable way of
choosing the measurement variables for each factor (latent variable) consists of
carrying out a series of confirmatory factorial analyses. Using the results of part of a
questionnaire designed to this effect, the relevant sections of which are included in the
appendix, we established that the variables with the highest standardized coefficients
for a relationship-oriented style of leadership were as follows:
.
PE1_7: Time available.
. PE1_8: Suggestions.
.
PE1_10: Effectiveness.

In our model, these variables are referred to as:

.
PE1_7: Time available ¼ LIDREL_1.
.
PE1_8: Suggestions ¼ LIDREL_2.
. PE1_10: Effectiveness ¼ LIDREL_3.

The highest standardized coefficient values using this model as a result of

confirmatory factorial analysis for task-oriented leadership were:
.
PE2_3: Regulations.
. PE2_2: Orientation toward the task.
.
PE2_5: Criticism.

In our model, these variables are referred to as:

.
PE2_3: Regulations ¼ LIDTAR_1.
.
PE2_2: Orientation toward the task ¼ LIDTAR_2.
.
PE2_5: Criticism ¼ LIDTAR_3.
 Thirdly, the highest standardized coefficient values of the model from the confirmatory Importance of
factorial analyses for participative leadership were: leadership
.
PE3_1: Participation.
. PE3_2: Delegation.
.
PE3_4: Groups.
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:14 08 October 2017 (PT)

These variables appear in the model as:

1109
.
PE3_1: Participation ¼ LIDPAR_1.
.
PE3_2: Delegation ¼ LIDPAR_2.
.
PE3_4: Groups ¼ LIDPAR_3.

Finally, the resulting model established from the confirmatory factorial analyses for
the generation of collective entrepreneurship, factors with the highest values of
standardized coefficients, were as follows:
.
PF1_8: Voluntary contributions.
.
PF1_2: Transmission of the teamwork ethic.
.
PF1_10: Accumulation of talent.

These variables appear in our model as:

.
PF1_8: Voluntary contributions ¼ EMPCOL_1.
.
PF1_2: Transmission of the teamwork ethic ¼ EMPCOL_2.
.
PF1_10: Accumulation of talent ¼ EMPCOL_3.

Results
From the results given above, it is possible to obtain an approximation of what might
be the effect of the total direct impact of each leadership style on the transmission of
collective entrepreneurship to the work team. The estimation obtained is shown in
Figure 2.
Formally, the structural part of the model is given by the equation:

CPGNCC ¼ g11 *LIDREL þ g12 *LIDTAR 2 g13*LIDPAR þ z1

For which the following estimation was obtained:

CPGNCC ¼ 0:54* LIDREL 2 0:23*LIDTAR þ 0:23*LIDPAR þ z^1

ð3:65Þ ð2:01Þ ð1:98Þ

In brackets, and underneath each coefficient, appears the value of the t statistic
associated with the null contrast of each coefficient, which is asymptotically
distributed as a t student value with 48 degrees of freedom. The fact that the values are
greater than 1.96 suggests that the coefficients are not null and that the three styles of
leadership have a significant impact on collective entrepreneurship.
 MD
45,7
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:14 08 October 2017 (PT)

1110

Figure 2.
Direct influence of
leadership style on the
transmission of the
entrepreneurial spirit
(collective
entrepreneurship) to the
work team
(ESTLID_EMPCOL)

Validation of the model

According to the values shown in Table I, the null hypothesis of the model’s goodness
of fit can be accepted ( p-value ¼ 0.112). The goodness of fit index (Table II) is also
high (0.80), thus confirming the validity of the model.
In light of the results obtained and due to the opportunity provided for carrying out
new approximations that, potentially, would allow us to obtain further information
with a view to adding further dimensions to our study, we proceeded to carry out a new
analysis in an attempt to explain the impact that the entrepreneurial or
non-entrepreneurial character of the leader has on the probability of transmitting

ESTLID_EMPCOL ESTLID_EMPCOL-EMP and NOEMP

x2 60.15 122.17
Table I. G-freedom 48 102
Goodness of fit contrast p-value 0.112 0.085

ESTLID_EMPCOL ESTLID_EMPCOL-EMP and NOEMP

Table II. Goodness indices 0.80 0.78

Goodness of fit Root mean squared error 0.092 0.088
 the entrepreneurial spirit to the work team, according to the style of leadership applied Importance of
in the organization. leadership
The results obtained for entrepreneurial and non-entrepreneurial leaders are shown
in Figures 3 and 4, respectively. The structural equations for the multi-sample model
are expressed as:
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:14 08 October 2017 (PT)

CPGNCC ¼ g e11 *LIDREL þ g e12 *LIDTAR þ g e13* LIDPAR þ z e1 1111

ne*
CPGNCC ¼ g ne ne ne
11 *LIDREL þ g 12 *LIDTAR þ g 13 LIDPAR þ z 1

where the superindices e and ne refer to the coefficients of the structural equation for
the groups of entrepreneurial and non-entrepreneurial leaders, respectively.
The estimation obtained for entrepreneurial leaders is as follows:
e
CPGNCC ¼ 0:92* LIDREL 2 0:31*LIDTAR þ 0:34*LIDPAR þ z^1
ð3:58Þ ð22:17Þ ð1:04Þ

while for non-entrepreneurial leaders, the estimation can be expressed as:

ne
CPGNCC ¼ 0:19* LIDREL 2 0:16*LIDTAR þ 0:45*LIDPAR þ z^1
ð1:09Þ ð22:44Þ ð4:43Þ

In brackets, and underneath each coefficient, appears the value of the t statistic
associated with the null contrast of each coefficient, asymptotically distributed as a t
student value with 102 degrees of freedom. It can be observed that the values of the t

Figure 3.
Model of direct relations
between leadership styles
and the probability of
transmitting the
entrepreneurial spirit to
the work team for
entrepreneurial leaders
(ESTLID_EMPCOL-EMP)
 MD
45,7
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:14 08 October 2017 (PT)

1112

Figure 4.
Model of direct relations
between leadership styles
and the probability of
transmitting the
entrepreneurial spirit to
the work team for
non-entrepreneurial
leaders
(ESTLID_EMPCOL-
NOEMP)

statistics associated with the coefficients of all the variables, with the exception of
participative leadership (in the equation for entrepreneurial leaders) and that of a
relationship-based leadership style (in the equation for non-entrepreneurial leaders) are
greater than 1.96.

Validation of the entrepreneurial models

According to the values in Table I, the null hypotheses for the model’s goodness of fit
are acceptable ( p-value ¼ 0.085). The validity of the model (Table II) is confirmed by
the values (0.78) of the goodness of fit index and by the average quadratic error.

Final contrast of the existing relation

At this point, it was necessary to carry out a contrast of the null hypothesis that the
values of the two coefficients associated with the same variable (styles of leadership)
were equal in the previous structural equations. We used the following procedure:
.
We estimated the original model and obtained the goodness of fit Chi-squared
statistic, represented by x1.
.
We opposed equality restrictions and estimated the restricted model by again
obtaining the goodness of fit Chi-squared statistic, represented by x0.
.
We calculated the contrast statistic D ¼ x0 2 x1
.
Under the null hypothesis, D is asymptotically distributed as a Chi-squared value
with degrees of freedom given by the difference between the degrees of freedom
of the general and restricted models.
 Therefore: Importance of
.
we accept the null hypothesis when the p-value of the statistic is greater than the leadership
level of significativity chosen, normally represented by a ¼ 0:05; and
.
we reject the hypothesis that the coefficients are equal when the p-value is lower
than that level.
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:14 08 October 2017 (PT)

The outcome of the aforementioned contrast is shown in Table III. 1113

We can thus reject the null hypothesis that the impact of a leadership style based on
relationships is identical among entrepreneurial and non-entrepreneurial leaders.
There is insufficient empirical evidence to suggest that the other two styles of
leadership have differing levels of impact with regard to the two types of leader.

Conclusions
On analysing the results obtained from applying the multi-sample analysis, it can be
seen that a leadership based on relationships, (coefficient ¼ 0:54) shows a positive
impact, with an intensity of more than double that of participative leadership
(coefficient ¼ 0:23). It can also be concluded that a task-oriented leadership style
reduces the chances if transmitting the entrepreneurial spirit to the work team by
having a negative influence (coefficient 2 0.23) on the generation of collective
entrepreneurship in the firm. However, a participative leadership style (coefficient
þ 0.23) and, to an even greater extent, leadership based on relationships (coefficient
þ 0.54), both increase this capacity; thereby confirming H1, H2 and H3.
Moreover, when we incorporate the entrepreneurial or non-entrepreneurial aspect of
the leader, it can be seen that:
.
Relationship-oriented leadership and task-oriented leadership, when the CEO is
of an entrepreneurial nature; the former showing a positive sign (0.92) and the
latter a negative one (2 0.31).
.
Task-oriented leadership and participative leadership, when the CEO is
non-entrepreneurial. The first group is negative (2 0.16) and the second, positive
(0.45).

One conclusion from this analysis is that, although a task-oriented leadership style
appears to reduce the capacity to generate collective entrepreneurship, and, therefore,
the chances of transmitting the entrepreneurial spirit to the work team, regardless of
the entrepreneurial or non-entrepreneurial nature of the leader, the impact of the other
two leadership styles does appear to depend on this factor. Therefore, when the leader
is entrepreneurial, a relationship-oriented style of leadership is positive (0.92), where
the leader can allow their entrepreneurial capabilities to flow freely among team
members due to the importance they give to people and their relationships, the support,
rewards and personal consideration they offer and, above all, the respect, acceptance
Table III.
Leadership style x1 x0 Statistic D Degrees of freedom p-value Contrast of null
hypotheses models
Relationships 122.17 126.38 4.21 1 0.040 (ESTLID-EMPCOL-EMP
Tasks 122.17 122.63 0.46 1 0.498 and ESTLID-EMPCOL-
Participative 122.17 122.68 0.51 1 0.475 NOEMP)
 MD and concern they show for the needs and of their subordinates, while the impact of
45,7 participative leadership is relatively small.
In addition, when the CEO is not inclined to be entrepreneurial, participative
leadership (0.45) appears to be the most suitable style to adopt enabling the generation
of new assets of collective entrepreneurship in the organization. In this case, CEOs are
likely to integrate the potential entrepreneurial capacity that the leaders themselves do
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:14 08 October 2017 (PT)

1114 not possess, of certain team members into the decision-making process. Under such
circumstances, our conclusion would be that the leader tends to rely on the group to
compensate for their own managerial shortcomings by sharing the decision-making
process. By involving collaborators in such tasks, the organization obtains better ratios
of communication, collaboration and problem-solving, all of which leads to the
cooperative construction of collective personal relationships.
Lastly, we conclude that, although it cannot be confirmed that the probability of
transmitting the entrepreneurial spirit to the work team and, therefore, the existence of
collective entrepreneurship in the work team is directly and positively associated with
the existence of an entrepreneurial leader (H4), it can be accepted that the influence of
leadership in transmitting entrepreneurial spirit to the work team does not depend on
the previous existence of an entrepreneurial leader, but on a particular style of
leadership in accordance with the entrepreneurial nature of the leader.

Limitations and future research

We have attempted to explain the dependent variable “transmission of the
entrepreneurial spirit – collective entrepreneurship” through a series of factors
(latent variables in our model), which are non-observable variables. This fact forced us
to use variables that could provide us with an idea of which latent variables could be
used to analyse collective entrepreneurship within the firm. In this context, our models
contain the relations of “causality” between these latent variables, assuming that the
variables observed therein are indicators or symptoms of those other variables. This
could be considered as a limitation to our analysis as the study of covariance between
two variables refers simply to the fact that certain given values for a variable are
associated with those given for the other variable and, thus, the essential difference lies
in the fact that the causal relationship assumes that any change in one of the variables
(the cause) will force a variation in the other (the effect). It should also be pointed out
that the size of the sample may have had some effect on the results of the study. With a
larger sample, the results could have been broken down by sectors or by regions.
Despite the fact that the sample obtained is sufficient for the structural models, and
thus for the variance-covariance matrix, it is possible that the desirable sample size for
the application of a multi-sample analysis might be considered close to the limit. It
would therefore be advisable, in future research, to increase the sample and thus
contrast whether there is a variation in the results obtained, thereby improving the
estimations contained in our conclusions.
Another aspect to consider with regard to the limitations of this research is the fact
of not having considered different variables as explanatory variables for the models or
even additional latent ones along with those considered in our models. In our opinion,
the variables contained in the models were sufficient to show the necessary impact in
order to explain the defined dependent variable. However, we are aware both of the
possibility of increasing the number of latent variables and of substituting some of the
 variables used here for others with greater explanatory possibilities. Therefore, we Importance of
believe that this could provide the next step in this line of research that would improve leadership
the overall vision of the current structural design of organizations and of the influence
of the leader as suggested by the new models contained in this study. At the same time,
we consider it suitable to initiate a new line of research related to the performance of
the organization and the implication and repercussions this may have for the existence
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:14 08 October 2017 (PT)

of work teams, in this study referred to as e-teams. With regard to the practical 1115
applications of the model of relationships included herein, we believe that the model
has important applications for the process of incorporating new CEOs into the
organization. The foreseeable attitude or style of leadership based on previous
knowledge of their entrepreneurial or non-entrepreneurial nature will determine their
model of relations and will provide previous information on their management
capabilities.

References
Amit, R., Glosten, L. and Muller, E. (1993), “Challenges to theory development in
entrepreneurship research”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 30, pp. 815-34.
Bass, B.M. (1990), Bass and Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and Managerial
Applications, Free Press, New York, NY.
Bennis, W. and Biederman, P.W. (1998), Organizing Genius: the Secrets of Creative Collaboration,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Blau, P.M. and Scott, W.R. (1962), Formal Organizations, Chandler, San Francisco, CA.
Bowen, D.E. and Lawler, E.E. III (1992), “The empowerment of service workers: what, why, how,
and when”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 31-9.
Bowen, D.E. and Lawler, E.E. III (1995), “Empowering service employees”, Sloan Management
Review, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 73-84.
Cole, R.E., Bacdayan, P. and White, B.J. (1993), “Quality, participation and competitiveness”,
California Management Review, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 68-81.
Collins, O. and Moore, D.G. (1964), The Enterprising Man, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, MI.
Deakins, D., Glancey, K., Menter, I. and Wyper, J. (2005), “Enterprise education: the role of head
teachers”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 1, pp. 241-63.
Downtown, J.V. (1973), Rebel Leadership: Commitment and Charisma in the Revolutionary
Process, Free Press, New York, NY.
Gibb, A.A. (1990), “Entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship – exploring the differences”,
in Donckels, R. and Miettninen, A. (Eds), New Findings and Perspectives in
Entrepreneurship, Avebury, Aldershot, pp. 33-67.
Hampden-Turner, C. and Trompenaars, A. (1995), The Seven Cultures of Capitalism, Hainan
Publishing Company, Hainan.
Harber, D.; Marriot, F. and Idrius, N. (1991), “Employee participation in TQM: an integrative
review”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 24-34.
Haskins, M.E., Liedtka, J. and Rosenblum, J. (1998), “Beyond teams: toward an ethic of
collaboration”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 34-50.
Hermel, P. (1990), Le management participative, Les Editions d’Organisation, Paris.
Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K.H. (1977), The Management of Organizational Behavior,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
 MD Joreskog, K.G. and Sorbom, D. (1993), LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling with SIMPLIS
Command Language, Scientific Software International, Chicago, IL.
45,7 Lee, S.M., Chang, D. and Lim, S. (2005), “Impact of entrepreneurship education: a comparative
study of the US and Korea”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,
Vol. 1, pp. 27-43.
Likert, R. (1961), New Patterns of Management, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:14 08 October 2017 (PT)

1116 Likert, R. (1967), The Human Organization: Its Management and Value, McGraw-Hill, New York,
NY.
Lounsbury, M. (1998), “Collective entrepreneurship: the mobilization of college and university
recycling coordinators”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 50-69.
McClelland, D.C. (1961), The Achieving Society, Van Nostran, Princeton, NJ.
McGrath, J.E. (1984), Groups: Interaction and Performance, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Miller, D. (1983), “The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms”, Management
Science, Vol. 29, pp. 770-91.
Morrison, A.J. (2000), “Developing a global leadership model”, Human Resource Management,
Vol. 39, pp. 117-31.
Parker, G.M. (1990), Team Players and Team Work: The New Competitive Business Strategy,
Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA.
Reich, R.B. (1987), “Entrepreneurship reconsidered: the team as hero”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 65 No. 3, pp. 77-83.
Ribeiro, D. (2003a), “The impact of consulting service on Spanish firms”, Journal of Small
Business Management, Vol. 41, pp. 409-16.
Ribeiro, D. (2003b), “Modeling the enterprising character of European firms”, European Business
Review, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 29-37.
Ribeiro, D. (2004), “External consultants in organizations: evaluating the Spanish case”, Service
Industries Journal, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 34-50.
Scott, H. (1999), “Our future requires collaboration leadership”, Workforces, Vol. 78 No. 12,
pp. 30-4.
Sorenson, R.L. (2000), “The contribution of leadership styles and practices to family and business
success”, Family Business Review, Vol. 8, pp. 183-200.
Stewart, A. (1989), Team Entrepreneurship, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Vroom, V.H. and Jago, A.G. (1988), The New Leadership: Managing Participation in
Organizations, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Weiss, H.M. (1977), “Subordinate imitation of supervisor behaviour: the role of modelling in
organizational socialization”, Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, Vol. 19,
pp. 89-105.
Yukl, G. (1998), Leadership in Organizations, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
 Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:14 08 October 2017 (PT)

Appendix. Extract from questionnaire

leadership

Figure A1.
1117
Importance of
 Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:14 08 October 2017 (PT)

MD
45,7

1118

Figure A1.
 Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:14 08 October 2017 (PT)

leadership

Figure A1.
1119
Importance of
 Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:14 08 October 2017 (PT)

MD
45,7

1120

Figure A1.
 Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:14 08 October 2017 (PT)

leadership

Figure A1.
1121
Importance of
 MD
45,7
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:14 08 October 2017 (PT)

1122

Figure A1.

Corresponding author
Domingo Ribeiro Soriano can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Louisa Huxtable-Thomas, Paul Hannon. The Role of Entrepreneurial Leadership in City Region
Economies: A Case of Developing Small Firm Leaders 155-179. [Crossref]
2. Mário Franco, Heiko Haase. 2017. Collective entrepreneurship: Employees’ perceptions of the influence
of leadership styles. Journal of Management & Organization 23:02, 241-257. [Crossref]
3. Louisa A. Huxtable-Thomas, Paul D Hannon, Steffan W. Thomas. 2016. An investigation into the role
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:14 08 October 2017 (PT)

of emotion in leadership development for entrepreneurs. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour

& Research 22:4, 510-530. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Marcin W. Staniewski, Tomasz Szopiński, Katarzyna Awruk. 2016. Setting up a business and funding
sources. Journal of Business Research 69:6, 2108-2112. [Crossref]
5. Heidi Forsström-Tuominen, Iiro Jussila, Johanna Kolhinen. 2015. Business school students’ social
construction of entrepreneurship: Claiming space for collective entrepreneurship discourses. Scandinavian
Journal of Management 31:1, 102-120. [Crossref]
6. Maija Renko, Ayman El Tarabishy, Alan L. Carsrud, Malin Brännback. 2015. Understanding and
Measuring Entrepreneurial Leadership Style. Journal of Small Business Management 53:1, 54-74.
[Crossref]
7. J. Augusto Felício, Ricardo Rodrigues, Vítor R. Caldeirinha. 2012. The effect of intrapreneurship on
corporate performance. Management Decision 50:10, 1717-1738. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
8. David C. Strubler, Benjamin W. Redekop. 2010. Entrepreneurial human resource leadership: A
conversation with Dwight Carlson. Human Resource Management 49:4, 793-804. [Crossref]
9. John Darling, Anita Leffel. 2010. Developing the Leadership Team in an Entrepreneurial Venture: A
Case Focusing on the Importance of Styles. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship 23:3, 355-371.
[Crossref]
10. Renaud Redien-Collot, Miruna Radu Lefebvre. SMEs' Leaders 143-158. [Crossref]