# The Effect of Entrepreneurial Work Environment on the Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Damianus Abun, Frelyn B Ranay, Fredolin P. Julian, Egdonna A. Quinto

► To cite this version:

Damianus Abun, Frelyn B Ranay, Fredolin P. Julian, Egdonna A. Quinto. The Effect of Entrepreneurial Work Environment on the Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Divine Word International Journal of management and Humanities, 2023, Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities, 2 (1), pp.243-266. 10.62025/dwijmh.v2i1.21. hal-05141337

HAL Id: hal-05141337

https://hal.science/hal-05141337v1

Submitted on 3 Jul 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Research in Management and Humanities

DWIJMH VOL 2 NO 1 (2023) ISSN: 2980-4817

Available online at www.dwijmh.org
Journal homepage: http://www.dwijmh.org

# The Effect of Entrepreneurial Work Environment on the Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Damianus Abun (a) Frelyn B. Ranay (b) Fredolin P. Julian(c) Egdona A. Quinto(d)

a) PhD: Professor, School of Business and Accountancy, Divine Word College of Laoag, Ilocos Norte Philippines.

b) PhD: Dean, School of Business and Accountancy, Divine Word College of Laoag, Ilocos Norte, Philippines.

c) PhD: Professor, School of Business and Accountancy, Divine Word College of Laoag, Ilocos Norte Philippines.

d) EdD: Dean, School of Nursing, Engineering and Information Technology, Divine Word College of Laoag.

## ARTICLE INFO

Article history:

Received January 15, 2023

Received in rev. February 20, 2023

Accepted: March 17, 2023

Keywords:

Entrepreneurial work environment,
risk-taking, autonomy, innovation,
organizational citizenship behavior.

JEL Classification:
D23; O15

## ABSTRACT

Entrepreneurial work environment equates to empowerment. The study aimed to examine the effect of entrepreneurial work environment on organizational citizenship behavior. Related literature and studies were reviewed to provide an in-depth concept. It employed the assessment and correlational research design. The population of the study consists of all the Divine Word College of Laoag employees using total enumeration sampling. The data gathering was made possible via adopted research questionnaires, while weighted mean and analysis of variance were used to analyze the data. The study reflected the respondents' high entrepreneurial work environment and organizational citizenship behavior. The analysis of variance suggests a significant correlation between entrepreneurial work environment and organizational citizenship behavior. It is emphasized that positive changes in the entrepreneurial work environment are necessary for enhancing organizational citizenship behavior.

© 2022 by the authors. Licensee DWIJMH. This article is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Introduction

Providing a high salary/wage does not always translate into high performance as shown in the study by Gunawan and Amalia (2015) and Carter (2019). It is a combination of both salary and work-life quality emanating from a good work environment.

The work environment has been studied by researchers to be an independent variable of employee performance as stated by Al-Omari and Okasheh (2017), Chaudhry, et al. (2021), Saidi, et al. (2019), Hafeez, et al. (2019), and Kamarulzaman, et al. (2011). The work environments that are predictors of performance are not limited to the physical environment, but also psychological (Al-Omari & Okasheh, 2017; Lazauskaite-Zabielske, et al., 2018). These studies suggest that improving performance should not focus only on physical arrangement, but improving the psychological

<footnote>* Corresponding author. ORCID ID: 0000-0002-9693-1541</footnote>

<footnote>© 2022 by the authors. Hosting by DWIJMH. Peer review under
responsibility of Divine Word International Journal of Management
and Humanities.</footnote>
work environment as well, as explained in Przepiorka's (2017) study on the role of psychological determinants in entrepreneurial success. The management should look into the work climate that emphasizes autonomy with an entrepreneurial mindset (Menon, 2021) or entrepreneurial spirit (Michalet, et al. (2006) that develops creativity, originality, risk-taking, and innovativeness. Chadha (2020), defined it as a place where people are not afraid of taking calculated risks and doing things their way. For example, Peng's, et al. (2022) study found that the entrepreneurial business environment affects the competitive position of a business startup. Thus, giving autonomy to employees and minimizing bureaucracy paves the way for individual creativity.

Guided by this premise, the study identified the elements of an entrepreneurial work environment and its effect on the OCB of teachers/employees. Notably, there have been no studies yet concerning the effect of entrepreneurial work environment on OCB.

The study is divided into several parts. The first part is the rationale. The second part is the literature review which established the theories of the study. The third part is the research methodology which includes the design, population, research instruments, locale of the study, and the statistical treatment of data. The fourth part presents the analysis and interpretation of data. The final part covers the results and discussion on the role of the entrepreneurial work environment in OCB.

## Literature Review

This part reviews the existing literature that has discussed the current topic. The purpose is to deepen the understanding of the topic and establish the theories of the study as the basis for investigation. The presentation of the literature and theories will be arranged thematically.

### The Concept of "Entrepreneurial", Entrepreneur and Entrepreneurship

An entrepreneur is a person who is a risk-taker, innovative, and creative. Entrepreneurship is the business activity as a result of the entrepreneurial spirit of the entrepreneur. The word "entrepreneurial" is attached to an entrepreneur. Merriam-Webster (n.d) defines "entrepreneurial" as "having to do with the creation and development of economic ventures: of, relating to, characteristic of, or suited to an entrepreneur". This definition emphasizes the creation and development of economic ventures by the entrepreneur. The difference between an entrepreneur and a non-entrepreneur is determined by those characteristics or qualities (Hisrich et al. 2013: 7). These are the individuals who have the special capability to recognize something different and create something different and convert them into an economic opportunity (Venkataraman, 1997). They can think differently, manage and organize businesses innovatively (Gedik, et al., 2015) and take the risks and enjoys the most reward (Hayes, 2021). Blasingame (2012) claimed that "these are the individuals who create new products, services or solutions while accepting the responsibility for the result".

However, an entrepreneur is anyone who can create something new and who can provide solutions out of the box (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000). Following such an idea, entrepreneurs can be found everywhere. Blasingame (2012) identifies several characteristics of an entrepreneur such as ownership (taking initiative and assuming ownership of
performance), courage, curiosity, vision, risk-taking, and redemption (taking lessons from failure). In addition, Chaves (2016) identified three important characteristics of an entrepreneur namely, the need for achievement, locus of control, and risk-taking propensity. The need for achievement is a personality trait and according to McClelland as cited in Dollinger (1995: 48-49), it is a key to entrepreneurial behavior. This concept has been proven to be a key predictor of entrepreneurial actions (Chell 2008: 88-89). Locus of control refers to an individual's perception of the underlying main causes of events in life (Littunen 2000: 296-297), whether internal or external. Studies by Westhead et al. (2011: 62), and Ahmad (2010: 205) mentioned that the locus of control of entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs are different. The study of Zhang and Bruning (2011: 87) indicated that they have strong internal control which is associated with power, discretion, and innovativeness. Risk-taking propensity has been associated with entrepreneurs (Ahmad 2010: 205). They pursue an idea even when the possibility of success is low after they have analyzed and calculated the risk (Chell 2008: 101-102).

Based on the above discussion, the words entrepreneurial and entrepreneur are interrelated. One is referring to the qualities of an entrepreneur, while the other one refers to a person who possesses the qualities. Employees in any organization may possess these qualities and convert them into business activities. Hence, they can also be referred to as qualities of the work environment.

## Work Environment: The Key Concern of Management

The definition of the work environment may vary from one researcher to another, depending on the area they are investigating. It is the climate or the surrounding of the workplace that affects the work of employees (Abun, et.al, 2021). Patro (2020) defines the work environment as "the surrounding conditions in which an employee works and operates". Kohn (2017) defines it as “the positive or negative encouragement or assistance from colleagues, department chairs, building-level administrators, and/or district-level administrators”. This definition is also emphasized by Bozak (2019) when he said that the work environment is "some physical, institutional, and social factors influencing career-related behaviors of an individual”. Two dimensions of the work environment are noted namely physical and social elements. This is strengthened by the definition of Rehman (2022) that the work environment is related to "the geographical location, social characteristics, and conditions in which individuals execute their job”. Social characteristics of the work environment refer to interrelationships among employees (Raziq and Maulabakhsh (2015), or as Kohun (1992) mentioned, it is about the bridge between the employees and the workplace.

In the early 1900s efforts to improve workers' productivity started. The management shifted in the mid-century, to standardizing the job, office arrangement or structures, heating, and lighting to task performance, human relations, communication and conflicts, comfort at work, and satisfaction (Walden, 2004). Interestingly, current studies focus on institutional and social factors of the work environment (Patro, 2020, Bozak, 2019, Rehman, 2022).

Some studies have found that positive or negative work environments are significantly correlated to job satisfaction (Sousa-Poza & Sousa-Poza, 2000; Gazioglu & Tanselb, 2006; Skalli, Theodossiou, & Vasileiou, 2008, Raziq & Maulabakhsh, 2015). Other studies (Al-Omari & Okasheh (2017); Chaudhry, et al. (2021), and Saidi, et al (2019) discovered a positive correlation between the work environment and the job performance of employees. It also affects
the work engagement and productivity of employees as Abun, et.al. (2021) and Foldspang, et al.(2014) claimed in their studies.

The above studies indicate that the work environment plays an important role in altering employees' behavior. Management may consider this as a key concern in development. Lans, et al. (2008) explained clearly that the positive correlation between work environment and entrepreneurial learning reflects the workplace's existing provision of employees' opportunities to develop entrepreneurial characteristics.

## Entrepreneurial Work Environment and Work Performance

Brainkart (2021) emphasized that a healthy environment stimulates entrepreneurs by facilitating business operations. Oftentimes these kinds of environments or climates are considered “unfriendly business environments” (Sudhamathi, 2016). It should be noted that the environment stimulates entrepreneurial behavior within the organization (Brainkart, 2021), embracing creativity and boldness in achieving organizational goals (Chadha, 2020). Abun, et al. (2021) supported this idea when they pointed out that it is “a workplace where employees are allowed to control their work to achieve goals and exercise freedom and autonomy in carrying out their duties and responsibilities”. Abun, et al. (2021) as cited in Chadha (2020) further explained that an entrepreneurial environment encourages employees to take risks and embrace mistakes in finding new ways to achieve organizational objectives. This kind of environment, allows employees to be rewarded for proposing new solutions or new strategies for job performance (Langer, et al,

This idea refers to an organizational work environment, which stimulates the employees to be entrepreneurial. This links to what De Jong, et al (2015) stated that organizational factors influence individual entrepreneurial behavior at work. Leblebici (2012) likewise, singled out work environment quality can affect the level of innovation of employees. Moreover, Adler & Borys, (1996) identified several characteristics of an entrepreneurial work environment such as autonomy and flexibility.

Furthermore, Machmud and Sidharta's (2016) study showed a positive correlation between entrepreneurial motivation and business performance. A similar study revealed that an entrepreneurial corporate culture affects organizational performance (Tedla, 2016). Adler and Borys's (1996) study also showed that employees' job satisfaction is higher compared to those who are working under a bureaucratic form of governance. When autonomy is taken away from the employees, then the perception of independence in decision-making is reduced and the feeling of self-efficacy is diminished as Langfred & Moye (2004); Wood & Bandura (1989)) put, thereby job dissatisfaction increases (Cantarelli et al., 2016). These studies suggest that autonomy in a working environment must be enhanced. This is equally supported by the study of Saidi, et.al (2019) that autonomy work environment affects performance and job satisfaction. Abun, et al (2021) recommended that the management needs to shift their style from bureaucratic to a humanistic management style that paves the way to autonomy.

## Entrepreneurial Work Environment to be Measured: Risk-Taking, Innovativeness, and autonomy.

The entrepreneurial work environment is playing a crucial role in organizational performance as seen in the study of Li, et al (2013) on the effect of culture and organizational culture on firm performance and survival. The company
must protect individual freedom and autonomy in doing things and protect the rights of competing parties (Licht et al. (2005) which results in institutional development. In contrast, societies that emphasize harmonious relationships encourage members to conform with others. Members are uncomfortable with conflicts and assertiveness and they avoid uncertainty (Kwok and Tadesse (2006). Licht, et al. (2007) said they prefer to accept things as they are. It is also true that company practices or company culture affect the entrepreneurial behavior of employees. For example, the study of Rajgopal, Shevlin (2002), and Coles et al. (2006) claimed equity-based pay encourages risk-taking behavior. Consequently, formal institutions are shaped by national cultural values while company practices are influenced by the culture. Using such a concept, entrepreneurial behavior is shaped by the entrepreneurial workplace environment. The following are the entrepreneurial work environment investigated: risk-taking, innovativeness, and autonomy.

## Risk-Taking Environment

Risk-taking behavior is associated with entrepreneurs. It is defined as the proactive behavior of individuals who take the risk for a positive organizational outcome and take the responsibility for a negative outcome (Dewett, 2006). It is one of the earliest identified entrepreneurial characteristics (Carland et al., 1996). This has been shown by the result of the study that entrepreneurs have a higher level of risk-taking than non-entrepreneurs (Tyszka et al., 2011); and they tend to have a more positive perception of risk (Gomez-Mejia and Balkin (1989). Risk, in turn, pertains to the degree of uncertainty and potential loss associated with the outcome as a result of sets of behavior (Forlani & Mullins, 2000). Moreover, risk-taking behavior has been associated with an individualistic culture that emphasizes autonomy and freedom (Licht et al. (2005, Kim & Park, 2010).

Studies showed that leadership has a significant effect on the behavior of employees (Inceoglu, et al, 2018, Martin, et al., 2015). Leaders particularly share information and engage them in discussion (Ahearne, et al, 2005). Moreover, Half (2019) suggested several ways to encourage risk-taking behavior such as leading by example, defining the smart risk, spreading the message, creating a safe environment for risk-taking, rewarding risk-takers, identifying risk-takers, recruiting born-to-be risk-takers, starting small and building it up, and setting a creative time.

## Innovative Work Environment

Innovation is defined as “a process that begins with an introduction to a plan of an idea and will become a new function and so it differs from creation” (Tohidi & Jabbari, 2012). It is believed to be a predictor of growth, survival, and success of company performance (Tohidi & Jabbari, 2012, Samuel, et al., 2017).

As was presented earlier that innovative behavior is a product of social context or social environment. Correspondingly, the management needs to create such an organizational environment. Inceoglu, et al, (2018,) and Martin, et al., (2015) asserted the effect of empowering leadership on risk-taking behavior and innovative behavior, therefore leadership/management needs to introduce practices in the workplace that promote innovative behavior such as leading by example, establishing a supportive work culture, promoting, creating an innovative physical environment, and providing learning opportunities (Australian Government, 2022).
Autonomy Work Environment

Autonomy has varied definitions, for example, Werner Wahl (2015) referred to it as "a state in which the person is, or
feels, capable of pursuing life goals by use of his or her resources". While Scott (2009) defined it as self-governance.
Congruently, Forbes and Jermier (2015) considered it as "the condition or quality of being self-governing or free from
excessive external control". These definitions zero in on self-governance, whereby a study has confirmed the
association between autonomy and intrinsic motivation (Meng & Ma, 2015). A study by the University of Birmingham
(2017) also found that autonomy in the workplace affects the well-being and job satisfaction of employees and it also
influences creative behavior and job performance (Çekmecelioğlu & Günsel, 2011).

The Concept of Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)

According to Graham (1991), as cited in Aristotle, (1941); Cary, (1977); Inkeles, (1969), citizenship is the organizational equivalent of citizens' responsibilities which are composed of three categories: obedience, loyalty, and political participation. Citizenship behavior and citizenship responsibilities are synonymous as mentioned by Graham (1991). Citizenship behavior is expanded to include devoting time and effort to responsibilities of governance, sharing information with others, and engaging in discussions related to social issues affecting the state (Graham, 1991). These three categories of citizens' responsibilities are applied in an organizational setting. Thus, Inkeles (1969) classifies three organizational responsibilities or organizational citizenship behavior, and they are **organizational obedience, organizational loyalty, and organizational participation**. Organizational obedience refers to organizational structures, job descriptions, and policies. While, organizational loyalty means self-identification with the leaders and the organization, going beyond self-interest, groups, and departments. Lastly, organizational participation requires a member to show interest in organizational governance. (Inkeles (1969).

Bateman & Organ, (1983); Smith, Organ, & Near, (1983) defined organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) that are above and beyond the job description. This concept goes with three basic types of behaviors identified by Katz (1964) that are important for organizational functioning. First, people must enter and remain within the system. Second, they must carry out specific role requirements in a dependable fashion. Third, there must be an innovative and spontaneous activity that goes beyond role prescriptions or job descriptions. Katz (1964) as cited in Smith, et al (1983) explained that an organization cannot just depend on the prescribed behavior, but should also consider the acts of cooperation, helpfulness, suggestions, gestures of goodwill, and altruism. Roethsberger and Dickson (1964) as cited in Smith, et al (1983) underscored cooperation as an act that maintains internal equilibrium which includes gestures of individuals to help others; this follows the logic of sentiment (Roethsberger & Dickson, 1964).

Since the introduction of the OCB, there have been a lot of efforts to identify common dimensions of organizational citizenship behavior. The latest common dimensions of OCB seem to focus on the loyalty and participation dimension of citizenship as recommended by political philosophy (Graham, 1991) and (Inkeles, 1969). Organ and Ryan, (1995) emphasized it as positive work behaviors that are beyond the rules, regulations, and job descriptions.
Smith, Organ, and Near (1983), and Bateman and Organ (1983) primarily identified two dimensions of OCB: altruism and general compliance. Meanwhile, Organ (1988), and Wang et al. (2013) as cited in Abun, et al. (2021) identified five dimensions of organizational citizenship behavior: conscientiousness, sportsmanship, civic virtue, courtesy, and altruism. Sportsmanship refers to individuals who always maintain a positive view of what is happening around them (Wang, et al. 2013 cited by Abun, et al. 2021). Conscientiousness explains people who care (Psychologist World, n.d, cited by Abun, et al. 2021). Civic virtue refers to individuals who participate in any organizational activities and issues are discussed for the benefit of the organization (Organ, 1988, Abun, et al. 2021). Courtesy explains individuals who are polite and considerate toward other people (Organ, 1988). Altruism is about people who are always willing to help others (Organ, 1988). Podsakoff, et al (2000) also identified seven dimensions some of which were identified by Organ (1988): helping behaviors, sportsmanship, organizational loyalty, organizational compliance, individual initiative, civic virtue, and self-development.

Inkeles (1969), Organ, and Near (1983), Bateman and Organ (1983 and 1988), and Podsakoff, et al (2000), identified
several dimensions which Fox and Specter (n.d) encapsulated as altruistic behavior. These are not limited to helping
others but also include behaviors that are helping the organization; hence these recapitulate all behaviors identified by
Organ (1988) and Podsakoff, et al (2000).

Conceptual Framework

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Source: Langer, et.al (2019), Abun, et al (2021), Fox and Specter (n.d).

Figure 1: The conceptual framework reflects the relationship between independent and dependent variables. Entrepreneurial work environments such as risk-taking, innovativeness, and autonomy affect OCB along with OCBP and OCBO.

Statement of the Problems

The study aims to examined the effect of an entrepreneurial work environment on organizational citizenship behavior.
It specifically seeks to answered the following questions:

1. What is the entrepreneurial environment in terms of risk-taking, innovativeness, and autonomy?

2. What is organizational citizenship behavior in terms of OCBP and OCBO?
### 3. Is there a relationship between an entrepreneurial work environment and organizational citizenship behavior?

#### Assumption

The study assumed that the entrepreneurial work environment is a key predictor of organizational citizenship behavior and that both, the entrepreneurial work environment and organizational citizenship behavior can be measured.

#### Hypothesis

Studies have found that the work environment affects job satisfaction (Raziq & Maulabakhsh, 2015), employee performance (Hafeez, et al. 2019), and productivity (Duru & Shimawua, 2017). Peng, et al. (2022) found that an entrepreneurial business environment affects the competitive position of a business startup. Based on the result of those studies, the current study hypothesizes that the entrepreneurial work environment affects organizational citizenship behavior.

#### Scope and Delimitation of the Study

The current study limits its investigation to the Divine Word Colleges in Ilocos Region and delimits its discussion on entrepreneurial work environment along three dimensions: risk-taking, innovativeness, autonomy, and organizational citizenship behavior in terms of OCBP and OCBO.

#### Research Methodology

The methodology reflected how the study went through identifying, selecting, processing, and analyzing information about a topic (Wilkinson, 2000, Leedy, 1974). The study followed the rule of procedures in the investigation by determining the research design, data gathering instruments method, the population of the study, the locale of the study, the data gathering procedures, and statistical treatment of data.

#### Research Design of the Study

The study applied a descriptive assessment, and correlational research design to determine the entrepreneurial work environment practices and organizational citizenship behavior. Ariola (2006) contended that a descriptive correlation study is intended to describe the relationship among variables without seeking to establish a causal connection. While descriptive research is simply to describe a population, a situation, or a phenomenon. It is also used to describe profiles, frequency distribution, describe characteristics of people, situations, or phenomena (McCombes, 2020).

#### The Locale of the Study

The locale of the study was Divine Word Colleges in the Ilocos Region, namely Divine Word College of Laoag (DWCL) in Ilocos Norte and Divine Word College of Vigan (DWCV) in Ilocos Sur.
## Population

The respondents of the study were all employees of the Divine Word Colleges of Laoag in the Ilocos Region namely, Divine Word College of Laoag in Ilocos Norte and Divine Word College of Vigan in Ilocos Sur. Since the number of employees was limited, total enumeration sampling was used and thus all employees and administrators were taken as respondents to the study.

## Data Gathering Instruments

The data were gathered through research questionnaires. The study adopted the instruments of the Australian Government (2022) on Innovative Work Environment, Abun, et al (2021) on Risk-taking and autonomy and Specter and Fox (n.d) on organizational citizenship behavior.

## Data Gathering Procedures

The integrity and quality of research do not depend only on the content but also depends on the process of how the study is carried out. It must be done through the right process. Concerning this study, before the researcher distributes the questionnaires, a letter was sent to the Presidents of the colleges to request them to allow the researcher to float his questionnaires in their respective institutions. In the process of collecting the data, the researcher requests employees' representatives to retrieve the data from different individual employees before they are submitted to the researcher.

## Ethical Procedures

The study was carried out after the research ethics committee examined and approved the procedures and content of the paper if it does not violate ethical standards and if it does not cause harm to human life and the environment.

## Statistical Treatment of Data

Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze the data. The weighted mean determined the level of entrepreneurial work environment and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). The analysis of variance or ANOVA measured the correlation between the entrepreneurial work environment and OCB.

The following ranges of values with their descriptive interpretation will be used:

<table><thead><tr><td>Statistical Range</td><td>Descriptive Interpretation</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>4.21-5.00</td><td>Strongly Agree/Very High</td></tr><tr><td>3.41-4.20</td><td>Agree/High</td></tr><tr><td>2.61-3.40</td><td>Somewhat Agree/Moderate</td></tr><tr><td>1.81-2.60</td><td>Disagree/Low</td></tr><tr><td>1.00-1.80</td><td>Strongly Disagree/Very Low</td></tr></tbody></table>
## Data Presentation and Analysis

The data are presented in the tables according to the statement of the problems and followed by the interpretation or analysis.

### Problem 1: What is the entrepreneurial environment in terms of risk-taking, innovativeness, and autonomy?

<table><caption>Table 1. The Entrepreneurial Environment in terms of Risk-Taking</caption><thead><tr><th>No</th><th>Entrepreneurial Work Environment</th><th>Weighted Mean</th><th>Descriptive Interpretation (DI).</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td><strong>Risk-taking</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>This institution is a very dynamic and entrepreneurial place. People are willing to stick their necks out and take risks.</td><td>3.60</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>In general, employees are willing to take the risk</td><td>3.64</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Employees are trusted and they won't be judged or punished if they fail</td><td>3.50</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Instead of focusing on the failure, support and encourage employees to learn from their experiences</td><td>3.66</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Offer praise and promotions to those employees who have been brave enough to take calculated risks</td><td>3.62</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Encourage employees to come up with new ideas</td><td>3.62</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>The supervisors lead by their examples through their willingness to challenge the status quo</td><td>3.64</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>The employees are encouraged to take considered risks to open up opportunities for innovation.</td><td>3.68</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><strong>Composite Mean</strong></td><td><strong>3.62</strong></td><td><strong>A/H</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: Abun, et al (2021)

### Legend

<table><thead><tr><th>Range Of Mean Values</th><th>Descriptive Interpretation</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>4.21 - 5.00</td><td>Strongly Agree/Very High</td></tr><tr><td>3.41 - 4.20</td><td>Agree/High</td></tr><tr><td>2.61 - 3.40</td><td>Somewhat Agree/Moderate</td></tr><tr><td>1.81 - 2.60</td><td>Disagree/Low</td></tr><tr><td>1.00 - 1.80</td><td>Strongly Disagree</td></tr></tbody></table>

The entrepreneurial work environment in terms of risk-taking obtained a composite mean rating of 3.62 which means agree or high. Even if the indicators are taken singly, all the indicators are rated within the same mean rating level with the same interpretation of “agree or high” such as people are willing to take the risk, not being punished for committing mistakes, supporting and encouraging employees to learn from experience, rewarding those who are taking the risk, motivating employees to come up with innovative solutions, willingness to challenge the status quo, and encouraging employees to take the considerable risk to new opportunities.

<table><caption>Table 2: Entrepreneurial Work Environment in terms of Innovativeness</caption><thead><tr><th>No</th><th>Entrepreneurial Work Environment</th><th>Weighted Mean</th><th>Descriptive Interpretation (DI)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td><strong>Innovativeness</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>Demonstrate positive reception of ideas from others and provide constructive advice.</td><td>3.68</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Make innovation an integral part of leadership and management activities.</td><td>3.66</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Consult on and establish working conditions that reflect and encourage innovative practice.</td><td>3.64</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Introduce and maintain workplace procedures that foster innovation</td><td>3.62</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Acknowledge suggestions, improvements, and innovations from all colleagues</td><td>3.64</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Find appropriate ways of celebrating and promoting innovations</td><td>3.62</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>Promote and reinforce the value of innovation according to the vision and objective of the institution.</td><td>3.66</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>Proactively share relevant information, knowledge, and skills with colleagues</td><td>3.70</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><strong>Composite Mean</strong></td><td><strong>3.65</strong></td><td><strong>A/H</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: Australian Government (2022)
The entrepreneurial work environment in terms of innovativeness gained a composite mean rating of 3.65 which is interpreted as "agree or high". Even when the items are taken separately, they are all rated within the same level of mean rating with the same interpretation as "agree or high" such as accepting new ideas and providing constructive advice, making innovation part of leadership and management programs, establishing working condition that encourages innovation, introducing workplace procedures that encourage innovation, accepting innovative ideas from colleagues, recognizing and celebrating innovation, promoting the value of innovation, and sharing relevant information, knowledge, and skills with colleagues.

<table><caption>**Table 3: Entrepreneurial Work Environment in terms of Autonomy.**</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Entrepreneurial Work Environment</th><th>Weighted Mean</th><th>Descriptive Interpretation (DI)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>No</td><td>Autonomy</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>At work, I feel a sense of choice and freedom in the things I undertake because no one dictates to me what to do.</td><td>3.56</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>I feel that my decisions in my job reflect what I want because I am the one who set the rules of my job</td><td>3.58</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>I feel my choices in my job express who really, I am because I decide what matters to my job.</td><td>3.60</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>I feel I have been doing what interests me in my job because I am the one who decides what I want to do with my work</td><td>3.64</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Composite Mean</td><td><strong>3.60</strong></td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>Summary</td><td>Overall Mean for Entrepreneurial Work Environment</td><td><strong>3.41</strong></td><td>A/H</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: Abun, et al (2021)

In terms of autonomy, it obtained a composite mean rating of 3.41 interpreted as "agree or high". Each indicator was evaluated or assessed within the same level of mean rating with a similar interpretation of "agree or high", such as feeling a sense of choice and freedom to perform a task, setting the rules for one's task, deciding autonomously what matters to one's job, and deciding what one wants to do with the job.

In a nutshell, the entrepreneurial work environment of the Divine Word College of Laoag along with the three components (risk-taking, innovativeness, and autonomy) obtained an overall mean rating of 3.41 which is considered "agree/high". Even if the components are taken separately, all are rated within the same level of mean rating described as "agree or high" such as risk-taking (3.62), innovativeness (3.65), and autonomy (3.60).

<caption>**Problem 2: What is organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) in terms of OCBP and OCBO?**</caption>

<table><caption>**Table 4: Organizational citizenship behavior in terms of OCBP**</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Organizational citizenship Behavior</th><th>Weighted mean</th><th>Descriptive Interpretation (DI)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>No</td><td>OCBP (Acts that direct toward a person)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>Lent a compassionate ear when someone had a work problem</td><td>3.70</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Lent a compassionate ear when someone had a personal problem</td><td>3.66</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Change vacation schedules, workdays, or shifts to accommodate co-workers' needs.</td><td>3.66</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Help a less capable co-worker lift a heavy box or other objects</td><td>3.70</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Went out of the way to encourage co-workers or express appreciation</td><td>3.64</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Defended co-worker who was being 'put down' or spoken ill by other co-workers or supervisors</td><td>3.70</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>Help co-workers with personal matters such as sharing food or drinks</td><td>3.68</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>Lent money or personal property to a co-worker</td><td>3.64</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Composite Mean</td><td><strong>3.66</strong></td><td>A/H</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: Specter and Fox (n.d)
Helping others is one of the important values in any organization and based on the data on the table, the nOCB in terms of OCBP gained a composite mean rating of 3.66 which means "agree or high". Every single item is evaluated within the same level of mean rating interpreted as "agree or high" particularly lending a compassionate ear when others have work and personal problems, changing vacation schedules just to help co-workers' needs, helping less capable workers, defending co-workers who are being put down by others and superiors, sharing food with co-workers and even lending money to co-workers who are in need.

<table><caption>Table 5: Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) in terms of OCBO</caption><thead><tr><th>No</th><th>Organizational citizenship Behavior</th><th>Weighted mean</th><th>Descriptive Interpretation (DI)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Help new employees get oriented to the job</td><td>3.74</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Offered suggestions to improve how work is done</td><td>3.66</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Volunteered for extra work assignments</td><td>3.60</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Said good things about your employer in front of others</td><td>3.68</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Said good things about your school in the community outside the school</td><td>3.68</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Give up meals and other breaks to complete the work</td><td>3.64</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>Offered suggestions for improving the work environment</td><td>3.72</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>came in early or stay late without pay to complete a project or task</td><td>3.64</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>9.</td><td>9. Volunteer to share new job knowledge or skills with other employees</td><td>3.64</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><strong>Composite Mean</strong></td><td><strong>3.67</strong></td><td><strong>A/H</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Summary</td><td><strong>Overall Mean for OCBP and OCBO</strong></td><td><strong>3.66</strong></td><td><strong>A/H</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: Specter and Fox (n.d)

Organizations cannot be competitive and achieve its objective without employees who go the extra mile. The employees' OCB in terms of OCBO obtained a composite mean rating of 3.66 which is interpreted as "agree or high". Even if the indicators are taken separately, all the items are rated within the same level mean rating with the same interpretation as "agree/high" specifically about helping new employees to get oriented to the job, offering a suggestion to improve how work is done, volunteering to do extra work, saying good things about the school and employer in public and front of others, giving up meals to complete the work, helping the employer to improve the work environment, coming early or stay late to complete the task without asking for payment, and volunteering to share knowledge and skills with other employees.

**Problem 3. Is there a relationship between an entrepreneurial work environment and organizational citizenship behavior?**

**a. Entrepreneurial Work Environment and Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCBP)**

The different entrepreneurial work environment factors such as risk-taking, innovativeness, and autonomy, when taken together could significantly predict the OCBP (acts that direct toward a person) F (3, 151) = 67.970, *p* < .01 with .762 overlap between these three predictor variables and OCBP.

Specifically, risk taking *B* = .539, *p* < .01, innovativeness *B* = .304, *p* < .01, autonomy *B* = -.202, *p* < .05, 1.335 quantified the Y-intercept of the regression equation.
Therefore, the entrepreneurial work environment of risk-taking, innovativeness, and autonomy all taken together could predict OCBP. Hence, the observed variations in the OCBP are attributed to the joint effects of risk-taking, innovativeness, and autonomy in the entrepreneurial work environment.

Moreover, when risk-taking, innovativeness, and autonomy are taken singly, they could still predict OCBP. Thus, any change in risk-taking, innovativeness, and autonomy in the entrepreneurial work environment would also result in a change in OCBP.

## Model Summary

<table><thead><tr><th>Model</th><th>R</th><th>R Square</th><th>Adjusted R Square</th><th>Std. Error of the Estimate</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>.762<sup>a</sup></td><td>.581</td><td>.573</td><td>.32116</td></tr></tbody></table>

a. Predictors: (Constant), Autonomous Environment, Risk Taking Environment, Innovative Environment

## ANOVAa

<table><thead><tr><th>Model</th><th></th><th>Sum of Squares</th><th>df</th><th>Mean Square</th><th>F</th><th>Sig.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">1</td><td>Regression</td><td>21.032</td><td>3</td><td>7.011</td><td>67.970</td><td>.000<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Residual</td><td>15.162</td><td>147</td><td>.103</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>36.194</td><td>150</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

a. Dependent Variable: Acts that direct toward a person

b. Predictors: (Constant), Autonomous Environment, Risk Taking Environment, Innovative Environment

## Coefficients

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Model</th><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="2">Unstandardized Coefficients</th><th>Standardized Coefficients</th><th rowspan="2">t</th><th rowspan="2">Sig.</th></tr><tr><th>B</th><th>Std. Error</th><th>Beta</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="4">1</td><td>(Constant)</td><td>1.335</td><td>.178</td><td></td><td>7.480</td><td>.000</td></tr><tr><td>Risk Taking Environment</td><td>.539</td><td>.101</td><td>.617</td><td>5.355</td><td>.000</td></tr><tr><td>Innovative Environment</td><td>.304</td><td>.103</td><td>.363</td><td>2.952</td><td>.004</td></tr><tr><td>Autonomous Environment</td><td>-.202</td><td>.091</td><td>-.232</td><td>-2.208</td><td>.029</td></tr></tbody></table>

a. Dependent Variable: Acts that direct toward a person

# Entrepreneurial Work Environment and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

## b. OCBO

Risk-taking, innovativeness, and autonomy in the entrepreneurial work environment when taken as a group could significantly predict the OCBO F(3,151) =59.060 * p* < .01 with .739 overlap between these three entrepreneurial work environment factors and OCBO. Specifically, risk-taking *B* =.534 * p* <.01, 1.333 quantified the Y-intercept of the regression equation.
Hence, when risk-taking, innovativeness, and autonomy in the entrepreneurial work environment are taken together, they could significantly predict OCBO. Therefore, changes in the OCBO are due to the joint effects of risk-taking, innovativeness, and autonomy in the entrepreneurial work environment.

However, when the entrepreneurial work environment factors are considered singly, it was only risk-taking which could significantly predict OCBO. Thus, any change in risk-taking would result in a change in OCBO.

## Model Summary

<table><thead><tr><th>Model</th><th>R</th><th>R Square</th><th>Adjusted R Square</th><th>Std. Error of the Estimate</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>.739<sup>a</sup></td><td>.547</td><td>.537</td><td>.33295</td></tr></tbody></table>

a. Predictors: (Constant), Autonomous Environment, Risk Taking Environment, Innovative Environment

## ANOVAa

<table><thead><tr><th>Model</th><th></th><th>Sum of Squares</th><th>df</th><th>Mean Square</th><th>F</th><th>Sig.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">1</td><td>Regression</td><td>19.641</td><td>3</td><td>6.547</td><td>59.060</td><td>.000<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Residual</td><td>16.295</td><td>147</td><td>.111</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>35.936</td><td>150</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

a. Dependent Variable: Acts that direct toward the organization

b. Predictors: (Constant), Autonomous Environment, Risk Taking Environment, Innovative Environment

## Coefficients

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Model</th><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="2">Unstandardized Coefficients</th><th>Standardized Coefficients</th><th rowspan="2">t</th><th rowspan="2">Sig.</th></tr><tr><th>B</th><th>Std. Error</th><th>Beta</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="4">1</td><td>(Constant)</td><td>1.333</td><td>.185</td><td></td><td>7.205</td><td>.000</td></tr><tr><td>Risk Taking Environment</td><td>.534</td><td>.104</td><td>.614</td><td>5.117</td><td>.000</td></tr><tr><td>Innovative Environment</td><td>.164</td><td>.107</td><td>.196</td><td>1.537</td><td>.127</td></tr><tr><td>Autonomous Environment</td><td>-.054</td><td>.095</td><td>-.062</td><td>-.570</td><td>.569</td></tr></tbody></table>

a. Dependent Variable: Acts that direct toward the organization

## Results and Discussion

This study identified the effect of the entrepreneurial work environment on the OCB of the employees. It examined the effect of risk-taking, innovativeness, and autonomy on the OCB of employees along the two dimensions namely OCBP, or the behavior related to other persons in the organization, and OCBO, or the acts that are helping the organization.

The results indicate that DWCL's entrepreneurial work environment along the three components is considered high with an overall mean rating of 3.41. This means that DWCL has a hopeful entrepreneurial work environment particularly risk-taking, innovativeness, and autonomy. Enrichment efforts are encouraged for the institution's development, highlighting the improvement of risk-taking behaviors despite its uncertain outcomes (APA Dictionary
Dictionary of Psychology, 2022). This concept is related to Holton’s definition (2004) when he defines risk in three components: 1) “potential for both rewards and costs, 2) variability in the likelihood of potential outcomes being realized, and 3) uncertainty about the outcomes”.

Risk behavior refers to the acts that lead to uncertainty about the outcomes, whether they will be successful or unsuccessful (Crone, van Duijvenvoorde, & Peper, 2016, Figueredo & Jacobs, 2010). However, these refer to positive risks which are socially acceptable, beneficial, and constructive (Duell & Steinberg, 2019). Along with this concept, Half’s (2022) study even suggests to management regularly encourages employees to take calculated risks and experiments. Keyser (2019) recommends allowing employees to commit mistakes sans punishment as it entails innovative behavior that leads to organizational success. Subsequently, the management allows employees to take a risk in solving problems via creative ideas (Choi, et al. 2021). Interestingly, Reisinger and Fetterer (2021) underscored autonomy as a vital aspect, employees look for, in a workplace.

The results show that improving the entrepreneurial environment of the institution could enhance the OCB of the employees. Living in a dynamic environment marked by high competition and uncertainty, beckons organizations to have employees who are willing to go the extra mile for the organization and other employees (Organ, 2015). This kind of behavior is significant to improve the quality, creativity, and efficiency of an educational institution (Yaakobi & Weisberg, 2021) which ensures employee engagement (Na Nan, et al. 2021), remarkable job performance (Mallick, et al, 2015), and high job satisfaction (Weikamp, & Göritz, 2016).

## Conclusion

Based on the statement of the problems, the study concludes that the entrepreneurial work environment along the three components namely risk-taking, innovativeness, and autonomy are considered high and the same finding related to OCB along with the two dimensions namely OCBP and OCBO are also evaluated high. It concludes that the entrepreneurial work environment and OCB of the DWCL employees have room for improvement.

Concerning the correlation between the two variables, the result of the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) suggests that the entrepreneurial work environment is a significant predictor of OCB. This finding recommends upgrading the entrepreneurial work environment to leverage OCB as this equates to empowerment.

The study recognizes its limitation because the population and coverage were limited. There is a need to conduct another study covering a bigger population which includes all the Divine Word Colleges in Region 1 Philippines, adding other variables, such as entrepreneurial work environment and turnover intention.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, D.A. F.R. Methodology, D.A., F.R. **Data Collection:** D.A., F.R. **Formal analysis:** D.A., F.P.J., F.R. **Writing—original draft preparation:** D.A., F.P.J., F.R. **Writing—review, and editing:** D.A., F.P.J., F.R.

All authors have read and agreed to the published final version of the manuscript.
**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Ethical review and approval were waived for this study, and the research does not deal with vulnerable groups or sensitive issues.

**Data Availability Statement:** The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

**Funding:** The study is funded partially by the school and the authors

## References

Abun, D., Magallanes, T., Acidera, E.B., Encarnacion, M.J. & Domingcil, C.U. (2021). *Work Environment and Work Engagement of Employees of Employees of Catholic Colleges in The Ilocos Region, Philippines*. Technium Social Science Journal, 19, 439-464.

Adler, P. S., & Borys, B. (1996). *Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive*. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 61-89. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393986

Ahearne, M.; Mathieu, J. & Rapp, A. (2005). *To empower or not to empower your sales force? An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on customer satisfaction and performance*. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 945-955. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.945

Ahmad, H., (2010). *Personality Traits among Entrepreneurial and Professional CEOs in SMEs*. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(9), 203-213. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v5n9p203

Al-Omari, K. & Okasheh, H. (2017). *The Influence of Work Environment on Job Performance: A Case Study of Engineering Company in Jordan*. International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, 12 (24), 15544-15550.

APA Dictionary of Psychology (2022). Risk-Taking. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/risk-taking

Ariola, M.M. (2006). *Principles and Methods of Research*. Manila: Rex Book Store

Aristotle. (1941). Politics (B. Jowett, Trans.). In R. McKeon (Ed.). The Basic Works of Aristotle, 1114-1316. New York: Random House. (Original work composed in the 4th century B.C.).

Australian Government (2022). *Build and Sustain an Innovative Work Environment*. Australia: IBSA (Innovation & Business Skills Australia). Retrieved from https://vetnet.gov.au/Pages/TrainingDocs.aspx?q=11ef6853-ceed-4ba7-9d87-4da407e23c10

Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). *Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between effect and 'citizenship.'*. Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 587-595. https://doi.org/10.2307/255908

Blasingame, J. (2012). *What is the definition of an entrepreneur?*. Forbes. Retrieved March 15, 2022, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimblasingame/2012/10/04/definition-of-an-entrepreneur/?sh=3d263c72339e
Bozak, A. (2019). *Vocational Personalities of School Principals: A Phenomenological Study*. Pennsylvania: IGI Global Publisher of Timely Knowledge.

Brainkart (2021). *Definition of Entrepreneurial Environment*. Retrieved from http://arts.brainkart.com/article/definition-of-entrepreneurial-environment-1393/

Cambridge-Dictionary (n.d). *Entrepreneur*. In Cambridge – Dictionary. com dictionary. Retrieved March 15, 2022, from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/entrepreneurial

Cantarelli, P., Belardinelli, P., & Belle, N. (2016). *A meta-analysis of job satisfaction correlates. In the public administration literature*. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 36, 115-144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X15578534

Carland, J., Carland, J.W. & Stewart, W.H. (1996). *Seeing what's not there: The enigma of entrepreneurship*. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 7(1), 1-20.

Carter, S.S. (2019). *The Impact of Wages on Employee Productivity*. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbooksauthors/2019/09/12/the-impact-of-wages-on-employee-productivity/?sh=be46f9060cf6

Cary, C. D. (1977). *The goals of citizenship training in American and Soviet schools*. Studies in Comparative Communism, 10(3), 281-297.

Çekmecelioğlu, H.G. & Günsel, A. (2011). *Promoting Creativity Among Employees of Mature Industries: The Effects of Autonomy and Role Stress on Creative Behaviors And Job Performance*. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 24, 889-895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.09.020

Charles-Albert, M., Reynolds, P.D. & Estime, M.F. (2006). *Fostering Entrepreneurial Business Environment from Firm Creation and SME Growth in the Mena Region*. Paris: OECD. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/mena/competitiveness/36094588.pdf

Chadha, R. (2020). *Company Culture: How to Keep Your Entrepreneurial Edge as You Grow*. Inc. Com. Retrieved from https://www/inc.com/raman-chadha/keep-your-entrepreneurial-edge-as-yougrow.html#

Chaudhry, M. S., Ullah, M. U. Shahzad, K., & Sulehri, I. G. (2021). *Impact of Workplace Environment on Performance in University Libraries of Lahore, Pakistan*. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal). 5022. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/5022

Chaves, J. (2016). *The Personality Characteristics of an Entrepreneur and Their Effects on the Performance of a New Business Venture*. Unpublished Thesis. Helsinki: Metropolia University of Applied Sciences.

Chell, E., (2008). *The Entrepreneurial Personality: A Social Construction, 2nd ed*. East Sussex: Routledge.
Choi, W. S., Kang, S. W., & Choi, S. B. (2021). *Innovative Behavior in the Workplace: An Empirical Study of Moderated Mediation Model of Self-Efficacy, Perceived Organizational Support, and Leader-Member Exchange*. Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 11(12), 182. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs11120182

Collins Dictionary (n.d). *Entrepreneurial*. In *Collins Dictionary.com Dictionary*. Retrieved March 15, 2022, from https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/entrepreneurial

Crone E.A., van Duijvenvoorde, A.C.K., & Peper JS (2016). *Annual Research Review: Neural contributions to risk-taking in adolescence - developmental changes and individual differences*. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 57, 353-368. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12502

Dewett, T. (2006). *Exploring the role of risk in employee creativity*. Journal of Creative Behavior. 40, 27-45. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2006.tb01265.x

Dollinger, M., (1995). *Entrepreneurship: Strategies and Resources*. Illinois: Irwin Publishing Co.

Duell, N., & Steinberg, L. (2019). *Positive Risk Taking in Adolescence*. Child development perspectives, 13(1), 48-52. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12310

Duru, C.E. & Shimawua, D. (2017). *The Effect of Work Environment on Employee Productivity: A Case Study of Edo City Transport Services Benin City, Edo State, Nigeria*. European Journal of Business and Innovation Research, 5(5), 23-39.

Figueredo, A.J., & Jacobs, W.J. (2010). *Aggression, risk-taking, and alternative life history strategies: The behavioral ecology of social deviance*. In Frias-Armenta M & Corral-Verdugo V (Eds.). Bio-psychosocial perspectives on interpersonal violence (pp. 3-28). Hauppauge, NY: NOVA Science Publisher.

Foldspang, L. Mark, M., Lund Rants, L.L., Hjorth, L.R., Langholz-Carstensen, C., Poulsen, O.M. Johansson, U., Ahonen, G. & Aasnæss, S. (2014). *Working Environment and Productivity*. Copenhagen: Norden Publication.

Forlani, D. & Mullins, J.W. (2000). *Perceived risks and choices in entrepreneur's new venture decisions*. Journal of business venturing, 15, 305-322. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(98)00017-2

Fox, S., & Spector, P.E. (n.d). *Organizational Citizenship Behavior Checklist*. Unpublished paper: the Loyola University of Chicago and the University of South Florida.

Gazioglu, S., & Tanselb, A. (2006). *Job Satisfaction in Britain: Individual and Job-Related Factors*. Applied Economics, 38(10), 1163-1171. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840500392987

Gedik, S., Miman, M., & Kesici, M.S. (2015). *Characteristics and Attitudes of Entrepreneurs Towards Entrepreneurship*. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 195, 1087-1096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.153
Gomez-Mejia, L.R. & Balkin, D.B. (1989). *Effectiveness of individual and aggregate compensation strategies*. Industrial Relations, 28(3), 431-445. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-232X.1989.tb00736.x

Graham, J.W. (1991). *An Essay on Organizational Citizenship Behavior*. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 4(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01385031

Gunawan, H. & Amalia, R. (2015). *Wages and Employees Performance*: The Quality of Work Life as Moderator. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues 5(1):349-353.

Hafeez, I., Yingjun, Z., Hafeez, S., Mansoor, R., & Rehman, K. U. (2019). *Impact of workplace environment on employee performance*: the mediating role of employee health. Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 17(2), 173-193. https://doi.org/10.3846/bme.2019.10379

Half, R. (2019). *9 ways to encourage a workplace culture of calculated risks*. Retrieved from https://www.roberthalf.com.au/blog/employers/9-ways-encourage-workplace-culture-calculated-risks

Hayes, A. (2021). *Entrepreneur*. Investopedia. Retrieved March 15, 2021, from https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/entrepreneur.asp

Hisrich, R., et al., 2013. *Entrepreneurship, 9th ed*. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Holton, G, A, (2004). *Defining risk*. Financial Analysts Journal, 60, 19–25. Retrieved February 13, 2023, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4480615

Inceoglu, I.; Thomas, G.; Chu, C.; Plans, D. & Gerbasi, A. (2018). *Leadership behavior and employee well-being: An integrated review and a future research agenda*. Leadership Quarterly. 29, 179–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.12.006

Inkeles, A. (1969). *Participant citizenship in six developing countries*. American Political Science Review, 63(4), 1120-1141. https://doi.org/10.2307/1955075

Jong, D., Jeroen, P., Parker, J., & Sharon, K., Sander, W. & Chia-Huei, W. (2015). *Entrepreneurial behavior in organizations*: does job design matter? *Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice*, 39 (4). pp. 981-995. ISSN 1540-6520. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12084.

Kamarulzaman, N., Saleh, A.A., Hashim, S.Z., & Abdul-Gani, A.A. (2011). *An Overview of the Influence of Physical Office Environments Towards Employees*. Procedia Engineering, 20, 262-268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.164

Katz, D. (1969). *The motivational basis of organizational behavior*. Behavioral Science, 9, 131-133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830090206

Keyser, J. (2019). View Point: *Why Punishing Employee Mistakes Can Sabotage Your Company*. SHR: Better Workplaces Better World. Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org
Kim, D.Y. & Park, J. (2010). *Cultural Differences in Risk: The Group Facilitation Effect. Judgment and Decision Making*, 5(5), 380-390. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500002187

Kohn, M.S. (2017). *A Strategic Focus for Educational Leaders: The Factors that Impact Transfer of Learning*. Pennsylvania: IGI Global Publisher of Timely Knowledge.

Kohun, S. (1992). *Business environment*. Ibadan: University Press

Kwok, Chuck C.Y., Tadesse, Solomon, (2006). *National culture and financial systems*. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 227-247. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400188

Langer, J., Feeney, M.K. & Lee, S.E. (2019). *Employee Fit and Job satisfaction in Bureaucratic and Entrepreneurial Work Environment*. Review of Public Personnel Administration 39(1) 135-155.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X17693056

Leedy, P.D. (1974). *Practical Research: Planning and Design*. New York: Macmillan

Langfred, C. W., & Moye, N. A. (2004). *Effects of task autonomy on performance: An extended Model considering motivation, information, and structural mechanisms*. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 934-945.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.934

Lans, T., Biemans, H., & Verstegen, J. (2008). *The Influence of the Work Environment on the Entrepreneurial Learning of Small-Business Owners*. Management Learning, 39(5). https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507608098117

Leblebeci, D. (2012). *Impact of Workplace Quality on Employees’ Productivity: A Case Study of a Bank in Turkey*. Journal of Business, Economics & Finance, 1(1).

Li, K., Griffin, D. Yue, H. & Zhao, L. (2013). *How does culture influence corporate risk-taking?*. Journal of Corporate Finance 23, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1563778

Licht, A. N., Goldschmidt, C., & Schwartz, S. (2005). *Culture, law, and corporate governance*. International Review of Law Economics. 25, 229-255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2005.06.005

Licht, A. N., Goldschmidt, C., & Schwartz, S., (2007). *Culture rules: the foundations of the rule of law and other Norms of governance*. Journal of Comparative Economics, 35, 659-688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jce.2007.09.001

Littunen, H., (2000). *Entrepreneurship and the characteristics of the entrepreneurial personality*. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 6(6), 295-310. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552550010362741

Martin, R.; Thomas, G.; Guillaume, Y. & Maio, G.R. (2015). *Conceptualizing leadership perceptions as attitudes: Using attitude theory to further understand the leadership process*. Leadership Quarterly, 26, 910-934.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.10.003

McCombes, S. (2020). *Descriptive Research*. Scribbr. Retrieved from
https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/descriptive-research
Machmud, S. & Sidharta, I. (2016). *Entrepreneurial motivation and Business Performance of SMEs in the SUCI Clothing Center, Bandung Indonesia*. DLSU Business & Economics Review 25 (2), 63-78

Mallick, E., Pradhan, R. K., Tewari, H. R., & Jena, L. K. (2014). *Organizational Citizenship Behaviour, Job Performance, and HR Practices: A Relational Perspective*. Management and Labour Studies, 39(4), 449–460. https://doi.org/10.1177/0258042X15578023

Meng, L. & Ma, Q. (2015). *Live as we choose*: The role of autonomy support in facilitating intrinsic motivation. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 98(3), 441-447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2015.08.009

Menon, S. (2021). *How to Foster an Entrepreneurial Work Environment and Innovate Like a Startup*. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2021/12/01/how-to-foster-an-entrepreneurial-work-environment-and-innovate-like-a-startup/?sh=67c469728d46

Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). *Entrepreneurial*. In the Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved March 15, 2022, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entrepreneurial

Na-Nan, K., Kanthong, S. & Joungtrakul, J. (2021). *An Empirical Study on the Model of Self-Efficacy and Organizational Citizenship Behavior Transmitted through Employee Engagement, Organizational Commitment, and Job Satisfaction in the Thai Automobile Parts Manufacturing Industry*. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, Complexity, 7, 170. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7030170

Organ D. W. & Ryan, K. (1995). *A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior*. Personnel Psychology, 48, 4, 775-803. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01781.x

Organ, D.W. (2015). *Organizational Citizenship Behavior*. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition). Amsterdam: ELSEVIER.

Patro, C.S. (2020). *Employee Welfare Provisions: An Administration Tool to Enhance Employee Efficiency*. Pennsylvania: IGI Global Publisher of Timely Knowledge.

Peng, B., Zhao, Y., Elahi, E. & Wan, A. (2022). *Does the business environment improve the competitiveness of startups? The moderating effect of cross-border ability and the mediating effect of entrepreneurship*. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. Wiley Online Library. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2262

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). *Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research*. Journal of Management, 26: 513–563. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600307

Przepiorka A. M. (2017). *Psychological Determinants of Entrepreneurial Success and Life-Satisfaction*. Current psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.), 36(2), 304–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9419-1

Raziq, A. & Maulabakhsh, R. (2015). *Impact of Working Environment on Job Satisfaction*. Procedia Economics and Finance, 23,717 – 725. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00524-9
Reisinger, H. & Fetterer, D. (2021). *Forget Flexibility*. Your Employee Want Autonomy. Retrieved from
https://hbr.org

Roethlisberger, F.J, & Dickson, W. J (1964). *Management and the worker*. New York: Wiley Science Editions.

Saidi, N.S.A., Michael, F.L., Sumilan, H., & Ahmad, A.A. (2019). The Relationship Between Working Environment and Employee Performance. Journal of Cognitive Sciences and Human Development 5(2):14-22.
https://doi.org/10.33736/jcshd.v5i2

Scott, R. (2009). *Ethical Foundations*. In Promoting Legal and Ethical Awareness. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Semuel, H., Siagian, H. & Octavia, S. (2017). *The effect of leadership and innovation on differentiation strategy and company performance*. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 237, 1152 – 1159.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2017.02.171

Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). *Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents*. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653-663. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.68.4.653

Sudhamathi, P (2016). *Entrepreneurial Environment*. Science, Technology and Development, 8(12).

Shane, S., Venkataraman, S. (2000). *The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research*. Academy of management review 25 (1), 217-226. https://doi.org/10.2307/259271

Skalli, A., Theodossiou, I., & Vasileiou, E. (2008, October). *Jobs as Lancaster Goods*: Facets of Job Satisfaction and Overall, Job Satisfaction. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 37(5), 1906–1920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2008.04.003

Sousa-Poza, A., & Sousa-Poza, A. (2000, May). *Taking Another Look at the Gender/Job-Satisfaction Paradox*. Kyklos; International Review of Social Science, 53(2), 135-152. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6435.00114

Tedla, T.B. (2016). *The Impact of Organizational Culture on Corporate Performance*. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. College of Management, Walden University. Retrieved from
https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3612&context=dissertations

Tohidi, H. & Jabbari, M.M. (2012). *The importance of Innovation and its Crucial Role in the Growth, Survival, and Success of Organizations*. Procedia Technology, 1, 535-538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2012.02.116

Tyszka, T., Cieslik, J., Domuratc, A. & Mackoa, A. (2011). *Motivation, self-efficacy, and risk attitudes among entrepreneurs during the transition to a market economy*. The Journal of Socioeconomics, 40, 124-131.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SOCEC.2011.01.011

The University of Birmingham. (2017). *Autonomy in the workplace has positive effects on well-being and job satisfaction, a study finds*. ScienceDaily, 24. Retrieved from
<www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170424215501.htm>.
Ur Rehman, T. (2022). Human Resource *Management Practices and Organizational Performance in the New Normal*: A Relational Analysis. Pennsylvania: IGI Global Publisher of Timely Knowledge.

Venkataraman, S. (1997). *The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research*: an editor's perspective. In Katz, J. And Brockhaus R. (eds). *Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence, and growth*. Vol.3: 119-138. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press,

Westhead, P. et al., (2011). *Entrepreneurship: Perspectives and Cases*. Essex: Pearson Education Ltd

Werner Wahl, H. (2015). *Adulthood: Dependency and Autonomy*. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Walden, R. (2004). *Work Environment*. In Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology. Cambridge: Academic Press.

Weikamp, J. G., & Göritz, A. S. (2016). *Organizational citizenship behaviour and job satisfaction: The impact of occupational future time perspective*. Human Relations, 69(11), 2091–2115. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726716633512

Wilkinson, D. (2000). *The Researcher's Toolkit: The Complete Guide to Practitioner Research*. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203185124

Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). *Social cognitive theory of organizational management*. Academy of Management Review, 14, 361-384. https://doi.org/10.2307/258173

Yaakobi, E. & Weisberg, J. (2020). *Organizational Citizenship Behavior Predicts Quality, Creativity, and Efficiency Performance: The Roles of Occupational and Collective Efficacies*. Frontier in Psychology, 11, 758. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00758

Zhang, D. and Bruning, E., 2011. *Personal characteristics and strategic orientation: entrepreneurs in Canadian manufacturing companies*. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, Volume 17, Issue 1, p. 82-103. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552551111107525

**Publisher's Note:** DWIJMH stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

© 2022 by the authors. Licensee DWIJMH. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities. DWIJMH is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.