Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Organisational Propensity to Innovate in a Public Sector Context

★

☆

SHARE

Overview

Paper Summary

Conflicts of Interest

Identified Weaknesses

Rating Explanation

Good to know

Topic Hierarchy

File Information

Paper Summary

Paperzilla title

Self-Aware Water Workers More Likely to Innovate (in Ukraine, at Least)

Among Ukrainian water utility employees, self-awareness, entrepreneurial orientation, knowledge-enabling, and entrepreneurial leadership are positively linked to perceived organizational innovativeness. Interestingly, intrapreneurial self-efficacy showed no direct relationship with innovation. The findings suggest that fostering these specific behaviors could potentially enhance innovation in similar public sector settings.

Possible Conflicts of Interest

None identified

Identified Weaknesses

Limited Generalizability

The study focuses on a very niche sector (water supply) in a single country (Ukraine) during a specific timeframe (pre-2020 reforms). This context significantly limits the generalizability of findings to other public sectors, countries, or time periods.

Self-reported Data Biases

Reliance on self-reported surveys can introduce biases like social desirability bias and common method variance, where respondents may overestimate their innovativeness or other positive traits.

Lack of Control Variables

The study doesn't control for other relevant factors that could influence innovation, such as organizational culture, leadership styles (beyond entrepreneurial leadership), or external pressures like regulatory changes.

Causality not Established

The study infers causality from correlational data. While the analysis shows associations between entrepreneurial behaviors and innovation, it doesn't definitively prove that these behaviors *cause* innovation.

Exclusion of Non-significant Variables

The study excludes one of its hypothesized relationships (intrapreneurial self-efficacy) from the main analysis because it was not statistically significant. This exclusion should be thoroughly justified and discussed, including an analysis of potential reasons for non-significance and what it means for the overall theoretical model.

Rating Explanation

The paper presents a reasonably sound analysis within its specific context, examining a relevant topic in public sector innovation. However, several methodological limitations, especially the narrow context and reliance on self-reported data, constrain its generalizability and impact. The exclusion of a key hypothesized relationship due to non-significance further weakens the findings.

Good to know

This is our free standard analysis. Paperzilla Pro fact-checks every citation, researches author backgrounds and funding sources, and uses advanced AI reasoning for more thorough insights.

Explore Pro →