Intrapreneurship or CE, through extensive literature (Bosma et al., 2014; Carrier, 1996), is defined as a concept of formal or informal activities within the process of fostering entrepreneurship and new venture creation within established firms through product, process and business model innovation and market development aimed at increasing profitability, capital raising, organizational profitability and performance (Zahra, 1991) and competitive advantage (Antoncic and Hisrich, 2003), responding quickly to new business challenges or achieving socially or economically desirable outcomes and opportunities (Ireland et al., 2003). From the definition alone, it is clear that CE is a complex area that is studied from different angles and perspectives (Girma Aragaw et al., 2025), which is why it has been a constant subject of research in recent decades (Pirhadi and Feyzbakhsh, 2021). The process by which internal entrepreneurs emerge is already known as intrapreneurship, CE, strategic entrepreneurship, and organizational entrepreneurship.

A key aspect of CE is the creation of an environment that encourages innovation and entrepreneurial behavior (Kuratko et al., 2014; Yunis et al., 2018), which can lead to a faster and more effective response to disruptive innovation (Karimi and Walter, 2016), with research suggesting this as a viable approach to solving economic problems in emerging economies (Hassan, 2024). Similarly, according to Kreiser et al. (2021) and Shevchuk et al. (2021), CE is understood as an environment that actively encourages and cultivates the entrepreneurial mindset of individuals to drive initiatives that can lead to new products, services, and business models, strengthening and innovating organizational strategy (Rodríguez-Peña, 2025). CE is a tool which fosters creativity, innovation, and an entrepreneurial culture within an existing organization. According to Audretsch et al. (2019), such a culture can improve employee engagement, which is crucial for an organization. Furthermore, Kreiser et al. (2021) state that a good match between a company’s external environment and its CE strategy leads to better coherence and alignment of the company’s internal entrepreneurial initiatives.

The importance of CE in organizations is recognized by Ben Arfi and Hikkerova (2021), who point out that it creates opportunities for entry into new markets and exponential growth. According to Jancenelle et al. (2017), the characteristics commonly associated with CE, such as autonomy, innovativeness, and risk-taking, have been shown to have a positive impact on market performance. It is therefore extremely important to foster an appropriate CE climate in order to reap the benefits of the opportunities generated (Zahra, 2015).

Entrepreneurial thinking and action are increasingly recognized as important drivers of productivity growth (Kuratko and Audretsch, 2013), and their strategic integration into an organization improves its competitiveness in the marketplace (Baena-Luna et al., 2025). This is particularly significant, as a highly motivated and engaged workforce is a crucial asset for any organization. According to Kassa and Raju (2015), entrepreneurial thinking has the potential to address and positively influence the problem of low employee engagement. Kearney et al. (2009) emphasize that organizations of all sizes, whether operating in the public or private sector, should strive for an entrepreneurial approach.

As early as 35 years ago, CE was recognized as a mean that companies implement to improve, enhance, and promote their innovative capacity and create new entrepreneurial ventures (Kuratko et al., 1990; Zahra, 1991). Over the past four decades, CE has emerged as a tactic that enables organizations to innovate and adapt to the challenges of today’s global markets. However, organizations face many practical and theoretical challenges related to CE (Kuratko et al., 1990; Zahra, 1991). There is a need to assess the components that shape the environment in which CE thrives, examine the entrepreneurial process, and focus on the specific conditions that foster entrepreneurship (Agapie et al., 2018).

The presence of entrepreneurs or an entrepreneurial mindset in organizations is evident and persists despite numerous obstacles and challenges (Kreiser et al., 2021). When organizations pursue an entrepreneurial strategy, the entrepreneurial mindset of employees must be carefully nurtured (Kreiser et al., 2021), as the success of CE largely depends on the internal environment (Bhardwaj and Sushil, 2012).

The question, therefore, arises as to what the most important factors are that determine the quality of the internal organizational environment, i.e., what are the antecedents for fostering entrepreneurship in established organizations? Numerous researchers (Urbano et al., 2022) acknowledge the importance of internal organizational dimensions in fostering and supporting an environment for innovation and have identified elements such as strategy, autonomy, leadership, culture, risk-taking, appropriate use of rewards, management support, availability of resources, organizational structure, and work discretion as essential factors for CE. In their systematic literature review, Urbano et al. (2022) classify important antecedents into three groups of levels that influence CE: the individual, organizational and environmental levels. The organizational level is of particular interest for the study conducted in this paper, as this level directly addresses the influence of the internal organizational environment on CE capabilities. The above-mentioned authors identified four categories of organizational factors: organizational structure and characteristics, role of managers, resources and capabilities, and job-related factors.

Although there is no universally accepted approach to integrating CE into organizational culture (Kontić et al., 2017), the extent to which organizations create an environment that encourages entrepreneurial behavior determines the success of a CE strategy. Therefore, assessing the entrepreneurial environment and the organizations’ readiness for CE is crucial for implementing a successful CE strategy.

One of the tools used to assess this environment is the CEAI originally proposed by Hornsby et al. (2002), which serves as a tool to measure key internal organizational factors that influence a company’s entrepreneurial activities and outcomes, i.e., contribute to the development of an entrepreneurial culture within an organization (Kuratko et al., 2014). In their earlier work, Kuratko et al. (1990) identified three key factors: Top management support, Organizational structure, and Rewards as critical antecedents of entrepreneurial behavior. Extending this framework, Hornsby et al. (1999) introduced two additional determinants: Work discretion and Time availability, further enhancing the understanding of the factors that promote entrepreneurial behavior. Later, Hornsby et al. (2002) identified a set of five stable organizational factors to consider when promoting activities within an organization. The final version of the CEAI instrument presented in Appendix Table 10 combines five specific dimensions that are important determinants of an environment that enables entrepreneurship: Top management support, Work discretion/autonomy, Rewards/reinforcement, Time availability, and Organizational boundaries (Hornsby et al., 2002; Kuratko et al., 2014).

The first dimension, Top management support, measures the extent to which employees feel that management facilitates, supports, and encourages entrepreneurship and its spirit, including accepting innovative ideas and providing resources for their implementation. The second dimension, Work discretion/autonomy, refers to the extent to which employees believe that they have flexibility and autonomy in their workplace, that they are free to make decisions at a lower level, with tolerance for mistakes and without much supervision from their superiors. The third dimension, Rewards/reinforcement, indicates the extent to which an employee feels that the organization encourages and rewards entrepreneurial activities associated with innovation and risk-taking. Examples of these mechanisms are: financial bonuses and awards, relaxation and paid time off, or employee participation in equity. The fourth dimension, Time availability, indicates the extent to which an employee feels that they have sufficient time, within working hours, to develop innovative ideas, independently of regular business activities. The last dimension, Organizational boundaries, indicates the extent to which employees perceive the internal and external boundaries of the organization’s departments and divisions as flexible and structured, enabling and facilitating effective and efficient communication. The more fluid the boundaries are, the more opportunities employees have to exchange ideas and work together to implement them.

Each of the five dimensions of the CEAI instrument is measured by a group of statements presented in Kuratko et al. (2014). Responses to each statement are based on a five-point Likert scale (from 1—strongly disagree to 5—strongly agree). A Graphical representation of the CEAI dimensions is given in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

Graphical representation of the CEAI and its dimensions. CEAI, Corporate Entrepreneurship Assessment Instrument; CE, Corporate Entrepreneurship.

The authors of the CEAI (Hornsby et al., 2002; Kuratko et al., 2014) emphasize that the purpose of this instrument is to indicate how likely a company is to implement an innovative and successful CE strategy and to highlight areas in the internal work environment where ongoing development efforts should be directed. According to Kontić et al. (2017), the CEAI measures the antecedents of CE, is brief, and focuses on individual perceptions of CE, making it a promising tool for improving CE activities.

In addition to the applications already mentioned, other authors used the CEAI for various investigations. According to Bhardwaj and Sushil (2012), the CEAI can be used as an assessment tool to evaluate the training needs of companies to improve the CE climate in emerging markets. Tseng and Tseng (2019) discuss strategic approaches to increase innovation performance in companies by supporting and training employees in CE. They also emphasize the importance of innovation for sustainable business growth and highlight various techniques required for innovative businesses. Other works also underscore the importance of the top management team and its cultural intelligence in creating an environment that fosters entrepreneurship in organizations (Afshar Jahanshahi et al., 2018).

There is no one-size-fits-all approach to integrating CE into an organizational culture (Kontić et al., 2017). Different types of organizations, with varying goals and originating from regions with contrasting economic and cultural development (Orozco et al., 2024), exhibit various levels of CE. However, there is a dilemma as to whether private companies and traditional public sector organizations can have the same entrepreneurial culture (Valadares and Emmendoerfer, 2015), especially since, due to the significant differences between these sectors in terms of structure, management and organizational goals, entrepreneurship in the public sector remains somewhat nebulous (Moric Milovanovic et al., 2025).

According to Kearney et al. (2008), public sector entrepreneurship can be defined as the process by which individuals or groups within public organizations initiate, implement, and adopt changes and innovations aimed at improving the efficiency and effectiveness of public organizations. Public sector entrepreneurship is a form of CE that is characterized by its implementation in public enterprises, state and local governments and organizations of public institutions (Omerbegović-Bijelović et al., 2016). According to Dube and Danescu (2011), the public sector includes governments as well as all publicly controlled or publicly funded agencies, corporations and other organizations that provide public programs, goods, or services to the community. The concept of public sector entrepreneurship is recognized as an essential area that explores the creation of public value under challenging government conditions (Vivona et al., 2025). It emerged from the efforts of theorists attempting to identify mechanisms that foster creativity, opportunity-seeking, and innovative behavior in public enterprises and institutions, thereby adapting the principles of entrepreneurship to the public sector (Osborne and Brown, 2013). In the 2010s, it steadily gained popularity and generated considerable academic interest (Funko et al., 2023).

The rationale for examining the entrepreneurial differences between the public and private sectors arises from the structural and operational distinctions between them. For example, while managers in the private sector focus on innovation, reinforcement through rewards and motivation, managers in the public sector work within standardized rules and bureaucratic procedures, prioritizing time availability (Kontic et al., 2022). The complexity of public sector entrepreneurship arises from the inherent conflict between profit orientation and social responsibility, which is exacerbated by constraints such as limited flexibility in decision-making processes. This suggests that the specific organizational dynamics of the public sector need to be taken into account, while understanding that it is not per se less innovative than the private sector (Mazzucato, 2014). Furthermore, the financial incentives for innovation and improvement are comparatively lower in the public sector, making it even more difficult to promote entrepreneurial initiatives. This could be the reason why entrepreneurship in the public sector often occurs in response to crises, and its success depends on the quality of public sector leaders (Andrews et al., 2020). Kearney et al. (2008) have identified several key characteristics and unique aspects of CE in public sector organizations. One of these is that these organizations are often not-for-profit, but instead are dedicated to creating value for citizens by utilizing a combination of public and private resources. It is precisely for this reason that Funko et al. (2023) conduct a comprehensive literature review examining the concept of CE in the public sector. According to Rakićević et al. (2020), it is particularly demanding and challenging to promote CE in public sector organizations where, compared to the private sector, there is a greater variety of objectives to be met and a greater conflict between profit and social responsibility. In addition, the public sector has less flexibility in decision-making processes and much lower financial incentives for improvement, with Mazzucato (2014) suggesting that a clear balance between risk and reward could increase public sector revenues, embracing CE along the way. Therefore, it is of great interest to understand the prerequisites for the development of intrapreneurship and entrepreneurial models that can be implemented in public organizational systems.

Private companies are highly involved in entrepreneurial culture (Urbano et al., 2022). Although entrepreneurial culture is highly effective, the aforementioned characteristics of the public sector pose a significant challenge to convincing public and state-owned companies to adopt it. However, this does not mean that the public sector is inherently less entrepreneurial, as throughout history the state has made large capital investments in areas that were considered too risky by the private sector (Mazzucato, 2014). While the primary objective of public sector management is to improve the quality and accessibility of public services to meet the needs of citizens regardless of profitability considerations (Clarke and Clegg, 1999), the integration of entrepreneurial principles in the public sector has been shown to bring numerous benefits, including improved service quality, increased user satisfaction, improved internal processes, more effective reward systems, streamlined communication, and stronger relationships between management and employees (Kearney et al., 2008). However, public organizations use external strengths to initiate and implement internal change (Kearney et al., 2008), and to promote public innovation, public sector managers often take personal risks and capitalize on opportunities for strategic opportunism as they strive to overcome administrative obstacles and political barriers (Brown, 2010).

As a result, numerous researchers propose their model for the implementation, improvement and promotion of CE in the public sector, as the implementation of a tailor-made model offers several advantages over traditional entrepreneurship frameworks designed primarily for private sector entities (Kearney et al., 2008). Garner and Mann (2014) have proposed a model that describes four essential steps that public sector management must take to foster intrapreneurship in public sector organizations. These steps include cultivating the ability to change organizational culture, developing a comprehensive understanding of risk, collaborating with other sectors, and improving expertise in refining performance measurement practices. The authors Kearney et al. (2008) propose a conceptual model of entrepreneurship applicable to public sector organizations that combines internal dimensions—such as organizational structure, decision-making and control mechanisms, reward and motivation systems, cultural factors, risk acceptance and proactivity—with external environmental factors, including political dynamics, complexity, change and regulatory liberalness.

Even with these models, the unique characteristics and constraints of the public sector still make the implementation of CE a major challenge. The prevailing perception of the public sector is that its primary function is to facilitate private sector entrepreneurial activity and provide a safety net through market correction, rather than exerting direct influence through its own activities (Mazzucato, 2015; Mazzucato and Ryan-Collins, 2022). Bradley et al. (2021) even note that most interested parties expect the public sector to take on the role of promoting entrepreneurial activities through appropriate government policies, rather than direct engagement. In addition to the characteristics already mentioned, Borins (2006) identifies three categories of barriers that hinder the development and implementation of innovation in the public sector. The first category, stemming from bureaucratic organizations, includes skepticism, competence disputes, coordination problems, logistical challenges, resistance to new technologies, and opposition from unions and middle management. The second group of barriers, related to the political environment, includes insufficient funding, regulatory constraints and political resistance. The third group, related to the external environment, includes public skepticism, challenges in reaching the target audience, and resistance from private sector interests and companies competing on the basis of public sector innovation (Borins, 2006). While acknowledging the above obstacles, Tremml (2021) also points out that an organization’s board of supervisors can in itself be a major obstacle to entrepreneurial behavior.

The previous subsection provided an overview of CE in the public and private sectors. However, a more theoretical approach is also necessary. Therefore, in this section, we aim to formulate and connect our research questions to established theories and develop research hypotheses.

The first research question of the study is as follows:

RQ₁: How do the dimensions of the internal organizational environment, as measured by the CEAI (Management support, Rewards/Reinforcement, Work discretion/Autonomy, Time availability, and Organizational boundaries), influence CE across different organizational forms in the public and private sectors?

Sections 2.2 and 2.3 presented an extensive literature review on CE measurement, antecedents of CE, and expected differences in CE between public and private organizations. Based on the work of Hornsby et al. (2002) and Kuratko et al. (2014), the following research hypotheses are derived:

H₁: Management support is a statistically significant predictor of CE environment.

H₂: Rewards/Reinforcement are a statistically significant predictor of CE environment.

H₃: Work discretion/Autonomy is a statistically significant predictor of CE environment.

H₄: Time Availability is a statistically significant predictor of CE environment.

H₅: Organizational boundaries are a statistically significant predictor of CE environment.

The second research question we formulated was:

RQ₂: Do these factors vary in strength and direction across organizational forms, and if so, what theoretical perspectives explain these differences?

Besides just observing how the dimensions of the internal organizational environment, measured using the CEAI, influence CE environment, we wanted to observe this relationship across different organization forms in the public and private sectors. The rationale for exploring the differences between the CE-related behaviors between public and private sector is grounded in the Institutional Theory (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). According to this theory, public organizations face strict, mandatory legal and political requirements that limit the autonomy of individual employees, compelling them to conform to standardized procedures and policies, often leaving little room for personal discretion or innovation in decision-making. Private organizations, on the other hand, face market and performance pressures, and therefore turn to more flexible, efficiency-oriented, and innovative structures (Scott, 1995). For Management support, it is expected that in private firms, the management support reinforces entrepreneurial norms already embedded in the organizational culture, thus having a better CE environment, contrary to institutionalized (public) contexts, where hierarchical rigidity and procedures constraint innovation (Bruton et al., 2010). Public Rewards/Reinforcement systems are often standardized and rule-bound, lowering their motivational power. On the other hand, in private organizations, rewards are flexible and performance-based, reinforcing innovation, creativity and entrepreneurship ideas (Kostova and Roth, 2002). Similarly, for Work discretion/Autonomy, it is expected that public organizations operate under coercive institutional logics, representing strong hierarchical control, while that private organizations operate under market logics (Kuratko et al., 2014). Procedural rigidity present in public organizations might limit Time availability and how employees allocate time for non-core and innovative activities (Tina Dacin et al., 2002). Organizational boundaries are expected to lower the CE environment in both types of organizations, however, differences in the strength of the impact are expected (Greenwood and Hinings, 1996).

Based on this, the following research hypothesis and sub-hypotheses are derived accordingly:

H₆: The impact of CE environment predictors is moderated by the organizational form.

H_6.1: The impact of Management support on the CE environment is moderated by the organizational form.

H_6.2: The impact of Rewards/Reinforcement on the CE environment is moderated by the organizational form.

H_6.3: The impact of Work discretion/Autonomy on the CE environment is moderated by the organizational form.

H_6.4: The impact of Time availability on the CE environment is moderated by the organizational form.

H_6.5: The impact of Organizational boundaries on the CE environment is moderated by the organizational form.

Fig. 2 gives a graphical representation of the ten proposed research hypotheses.

Fig. 2.

Graphical representation of the devised research hypotheses.

In this study, we conducted the CEAI survey in organizations from both the public and private sectors in Southeast Europe, specifically in the Republic of Serbia. The survey included 682 respondents from all five types of organizations using the CEAI questionnaire. Table 1 provides a comprehensive overview of the sample structure, categorizing respondents according to socio-demographic criteria: gender, age, work experience, and education level. Of all respondents, 58.8% work in the private sector, and the remaining 41.2% in the public sector. Regarding the organizational type characteristic, 10.7% of the respondents work in public administration, 17.89% in public institutions, and 12.61% in public enterprises, which means that 41.2% of the respondents work in the public sector. The remaining respondents, 58.8%, work in the private sector, specifically 28.89% in small and medium-sized enterprises and 29.91% in corporations. About half of the respondents had less than 6 years of work experience. Nearly 70% of respondents had at least a bachelor’s degree.

The first step of the SEM analysis is to explore the internal consistency and discriminant validity of the proposed scales. Some commonly used indicators of internal consistency include Cronbach’s alpha, Average Variance Extracted (AVE), and rho A and rho C when PLS-SEM modeling is used (Hair et al., 2014a). All of the above metrics range from 0 to 1. The closer they are to 1, the better the internal consistency of the observed scale. On the other hand, discriminant validity measures whether a construct actually measures the phenomena of interest compared to all other constructs in the model (Hair et al., 2021).

Since the two pre-tests showed that the data were suitable for SEM modeling, PLS-SEM was used in the next phase of the analysis to evaluate the model for the entire sample. The detailed path coefficients for the original sample and the bootstrap PLS-SEM results are presented in Table 4. All five subscales proved to be statistically significant predictors of the composite CEAI score. Out of the five scales, four subscales have a positive relationship with the composite score, while one, Organizational boundaries, has a negative relationship. This suggests that an increase in the score of the Organizational boundaries dimension results in a worse CE environment, whereas an increase in any other dimension leads to a better one. On the other hand, the remaining four dimensions are recognized as effective promoters of the CE environment, as an increase in the values of these dimensions contributes to an overall betterment of the environment. The sample mean values obtained by bootstrapping are close to the original sample values, and the measured standard deviations are low. These two measures indicate high stability of the measured paths.

To determine if there are differences between the same model created for the subsamples of respondents employed in different types of organizations, a multi-group SEM analysis was conducted. Table 5 shows the model evaluation for each of the five types of organizations.

Comparative analysis of the five models shows that the dimensions Work discretion/Autonomy, Rewards/Reinforcement, Management Support, and Time availability all act as statistically significant predictors of corporate entrepreneurship for every organization type. The dimension Organizational boundaries proved to be a statistically significant predictor in 3 out of 5 organization types, namely public institutions, private small enterprises (SMEs), and corporations.

In both public administration and public enterprises, all dimensions except Organizational Boundaries were statistically significant predictors of overall corporate entrepreneurship, with all of them having a positive influence on the overall CE environment. For both public administration and enterprises, the Management support dimension was the strongest predictor of corporate entrepreneurship. Rewards/Reinforcement and Work discretion/Autonomy dimensions followed, each with similar path coefficients. The dimension Time availability was the weakest predictor.

All five dimensions were found to be statistically significant predictors of CE in public institutions. Each dimension except Organizational boundaries has a positive effect on CE, and in terms of magnitude, the order is: Management support, Rewards/Reinforcement, Work discretion/Autonomy and finally Time availability. The situation is identical when it comes to private small and medium-sized enterprises.

Finally, the pattern for corporations is similar to that for public institutions and private SMEs, where all dimensions serve as statistically significant predictors of CE, with the Organizational boundaries dimension being the only one to exert a negative influence. However, the ranking of the other dimensions is slightly different. While Management support remains the strongest predictor, Work Discretion/Autonomy dimension has a higher path coefficient than the Rewards/Reinforcement dimension, while the time availability dimension still ranks last.

In addition to examining the path coefficients within each model, we also investigated whether there were statistically significant differences between the path coefficients for different organization types. Pairwise comparisons were conducted for this purpose, and the results are shown in Table 6. If the p-value is below 0.05 or above 0.95, there are statistically significant differences among path (Alzahrani et al., 2018).

Based on the results presented, we can conclude that statistically significant differences exist in several cases. The effect of Organizational boundaries on CE in public administration, where an increase in the value of this dimension leads to a better CE environment, but the opposite is true for public institutions, SMEs, and corporations, is a source of several statistically significant differences. Secondly, statistically significant differences were found in relation to the Rewards/Reinforcement dimension between corporations on the one hand, and public institutions, public enterprises and SMEs on the other. In all cases, the impact of the Rewards/reinforcement dimension was lower in corporations. This is interesting, but actually to be expected, as corporations are the only organizational type that rates Work discretion/Autonomy higher than Rewards/reinforcement, while all other organizational types do the opposite. Finally, a marginal difference in the strength of the impact of the Management support dimension was found between SMEs and corporations, with SMEs rating this dimension higher.

To examine possible differences in CEAI dimension values across different types of organizations, dimension scores were calculated as the mean of all items within each subscale. Table 7 contains mean values and standard deviation (std.dev) for each type of organization.

The analysis of the results highlights clear differences between private and public sector organizations. Employees in SMEs (M = 3.369) and corporations (M = 3.314) indicate the highest level of Management support, while public administration has the lowest value (M = 2.451), indicating stronger management support in private organizations. Similarly, Work Discretion/Autonomy is rated highest in corporations (M = 3.630) and SMEs (M = 3.592), compared to public enterprises, administrations and institutions, indicating greater autonomy of employees in the private sector. The Rewards/Reinforcement dimension follows the same pattern, and is valued the highest in corporations (M = 3.820) and SMEs (M = 3.731), while it is valued the least in public enterprises (M = 2.895). In contrast, the dimensions Time Availability and Organizational boundaries show only minimal differences between the organizational types, indicating that these dimensions are relatively uniform in both sectors.

The dimension values per organization type were compared using a one-way ANOVA. Given the sufficient sample size, a parametric test was employed. The results of the ANOVA analysis indicate that there are statistically significant differences in three of the five dimensions (p 0.01), namely, the dimensions of Work discretion/Autonomy, Rewards/reinforcements and Management support. For the subscales that show significant differences, a post-hoc analysis is required to determine which specific types of organizations exhibit these differences. To determine which post-hoc test to use, a pre-test was conducted to assess homogeneity of variance. The results indicate that the variances differ for all three subscales (p 0.01). Therefore, Tamhane’s T2 post hoc test was used for further analysis (Tamhane, 1977). The results are presented in Table 8. All the differences described were found to be statistically significant at the 0.05 level or below. An arrow points in the direction in which the values decrease.

Table 8. Discovered patterns related to differences in relevant dimensions among organization types.

Work discretion/autonomy	Rewards/reinforcement	Management support

Note: 1—Public administration; 2—Public institutions; 3—Public enterprises; 4—Private SMEs; 5—Private corporations.

With regard to the Work discretion/Autonomy dimension, it is interesting to note that there are no differences within the private sector, i.e., between SMEs and Corporations. However, notable differences in values can be observed between private organizations and all public organizations, with each public organization having significantly lower mean values compared to the two private organization types. There are also differences between the various public organizations, with public institutions having a higher mean value compared to both public administration and public enterprises. A similar relationship between public and private organizations can be observed in the Rewards/reinforcement and Management support dimensions, although the dynamics vary between public organizations within these dimensions. Within the Rewards/Reinforcement dimension, public institutions exhibit a higher mean value compared to public enterprises. Similarly, regarding the Management Support dimension, public institutions demonstrate a higher mean value than public administration. Within the Rewards/Reinforcement dimension, public institutions exhibit a higher mean value compared to public enterprises. In contrast, with the Management Support dimension, public institutions demonstrate a higher mean value than the public administration.