Beyond Proactivity: How LMX,Leadership and Organizational Culture Shape the Link Between Intrapreneurship and Burnout

Theoretical Framework

This study draws on three complementary theoretical foundations. First, the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model conceptualizes burnout as a response to ongoing job demands that exceed available resources. Within this perspective, leadership, the quality of LMX, and the broader organizational culture are understood as important social and relational resources that can either mitigate or intensify the impact of intrapreneurial demands on employees’ well-being (Bakker et al., 2023; Demerouti et al., 2001; Mao & Tian, 2022; C. Rigtering et al., 2024; Tummers & Bakker, 2021). Second, intrapreneurship is examined through Proactive Motivation Theory, which describes proactive behavior as shaped by the “reason to,”“can do,” and “energized to” motivational states (Ouyang et al., 2019; Parker et al., 2010). Depending on how much support and resources employees have, intrapreneurial activity may function as a source of protection against strain or become an additional job demand (Gawke et al., 2018; C. Rigtering et al., 2024). Third, the moderating roles of leadership and LMX are interpreted through Social Exchange Theory, which emphasizes how perceptions of reciprocity, trust, and support influence employees’ responses to proactive roles (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Qian et al., 2017; Yang et al., 2023). In addition, cultural dimensions identified in the GLOBE and Hofstede frameworks provide a contextual foundation for understanding how organizational norms shape the meaning and outcomes of intrapreneurial behavior (House et al., 1999, 2002, 2004; Zheng et al., 2025).

Taken together, these perspectives offer an integrated view of the conditions under which intrapreneurship relates to burnout.

Theoretical Perspectives on Job Burnout

Job burnout is a psychological syndrome characterized by emotional exhaustion, cynicism and a reduced sense of professional efficacy, representing a long-term response to chronic job-related stress (Maslach et al., 2001; W. Schaufeli & Enzmann, 1998). In the absence of resources such as social support, autonomy and diversity of skills, work begins to lose its meaning and prevents the fulfillment of innate psychological needs (Salvagioni et al., 2017). When the work environment negatively affects individuals, it can cause emotional disturbances, behavioral problems, chronic stress conditions and diseases such as burnout syndrome (Dike et al., 2021; Soares et al., 2023). The burnout syndrome at work includes the three mentioned components (Maslach et al., 2001), where exhaustion represents intense physical and emotional exhaustion that weakens the employee’s ability to work effectively. Cynicism or depersonalization refers to a skeptical and cold attitude toward customers and the loss of the personal element in dealing with individuals, while professional ineffectiveness or disengagement refers to a deep sense of ineffectiveness in work and interaction with others (Yao et al., 2015). This understanding of burnout aligns with the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model, which proposes that burnout emerges when job demands outweigh the resources available to meet them (Bakker et al., 2023; Demerouti et al., 2001). In this view, insufficient support, limited autonomy, and an unmanageable workload create conditions in which emotional exhaustion, cynicism, and professional inefficiency are most likely to develop (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; W. B. Schaufeli et al., 2009).

Previous research on job burnout has focused on professions that provide services to people such as medical services and teaching, however burnout is not limited to social service professions, but extends to other work professions in various sectors (Arora & Hastings, 2024; Lubbadeh, 2020; Trinkenreich et al., 2023). Job burnout is primarily related to the factors of the employees’ work, as well as to the factors of their personalities (Bianchi, 2018). It is a syndrome that is the result of chronic stress at work, with significant consequences for the well-being and health of workers. The causes of job burnout are often high job demands such as continuous physical, cognitive or emotional effort, role ambiguity and conflict, as well as work pressure (Bakker & de Vries, 2021). Job dissatisfaction, absenteeism, job demands, job resources, and presenteeism have been identified as occupational consequences of this syndrome (Salvagioni et al., 2017).

Job burnout can significantly affect employees’ work values, which reflect the priorities of individuals, indicating what is important to them and what they want to achieve in the professional environment (Dahiya & Raghuvanshi, 2023), and one of the negative consequences of burnout is employee resentment, which is strongly related to the dimensions of emotional exhaustion and cynicism (Michailidis, 2023). This is a significant challenge for organizations because of the great consequences that burnout has on employees and the organization itself. Burnout is a key factor influencing employees’ decision to leave an organization, and the risk of burnout is significantly related to employee turnover intention, even when other organizational factors are taken into account (Haar, 2023).

The Link Between Job Burnout and Intrapreneurship

Contemporary research shows that intrapreneurship is related to the psychological well-being of employees, but also that its effects depend on the way it is managed (Barbosa et al., 2024; Gorgievski et al., 2023; Lajçi et al., 2025). These findings indicate that intrapreneurial behavior can function as a psychological resource that increases engagement and reduces emotional exhaustion, which is consistent with the hypothesized negative relationship between intrapreneurship and job burnout stated in H1. In conditions of a positive communication climate and regular meetings, internal communication additionally increases the happiness of employees, which mediates and encourages their intrapreneurial initiatives and reduces the risk of burnout (Nguyen & Ha, 2023; Ravina-Ripoll et al., 2023; Romero-Rodríguez & Castillo-Abdul, 2024). Additionally, organizational empowerment through delegation of authority, alignment of values and strengthening of affective commitment strengthens individual sense of competence, reduces emotional exhaustion and encourages entrepreneurship within the organization (Moghaddas et al., 2020). These patterns are consistent with the JD-R framework, which suggests that intrapreneurship functions as a resource only when job demands are reduced or adequately supported (Bakker et al., 2023; Y. Li et al., 2025). At the same time, Proactive Motivation Theory highlights that proactive behavior contributes to well-being only when employees have sufficient motivational and psychological support (Gorgievski et al., 2023; Ouyang et al., 2019).

However, intrapreneurship is not a one-size-fits-all solution to burnout. For employees highly sensitive to punishment, intra-business demands can increase exhaustion, leading to task avoidance and performance decline (Gawke et al., 2018). A similar fact was also observed in small and medium-sized enterprises, in which, although perceived organizational support as a rule encourages intrapreneurial behavior, high work anxiety reduces this effect, thereby losing the potential protective effect of intrapreneurship on burnout (Chouchane & St-Jean, 2023). Therefore, proactive HR strategies aimed at early recognition and mitigation of anxiety are critical to the balance between innovation and well-being.

Individual resources also influence the dynamics of these relationships. Psychological capital forms a reciprocal cycle with work engagement and job resources, that is, the greater the personal resources, the stronger the engagement and intrapreneurship, and the weaker the burnout (Kuhlmann & Süß, 2024; Shaheen et al., 2024). As higher levels of personal resources and proactive motivation reduce the risk of emotional exhaustion, these studies further support the theoretical basis of H1. Entrepreneurial motivation and career adaptability have a similar protective effect. A high level of these traits is associated with a lower tendency to burnout due to a person’s better fit in a demanding but creative work environment (Cillo, 2016; Zhao et al., 2023).

Contextual factors such as gender roles and age differences can turn intrapreneurship into a stressor. Women in leadership positions, forced to adopt “male” entrepreneurial patterns, often experience intense emotional work, which increases exposure to stress and burnout (Biju & Pathak, 2021). Older workers contribute to innovation through experience, but often encounter barriers in accessing intra-enterprise networks, which can limit their engagement and increase feelings of professional isolation (Hador & Klein, 2019). Therefore, organizations must develop gender-sensitive mentoring programs and diversity management strategies in order to reduce the risk of burnout and take advantage of intrapreneurial potential.

Although intrapreneurial behaviors can be considered psychological resources that help alleviate burnout symptoms, their protective role is not equally pronounced in all organizational contexts (Acar et al., 2024; Gawke et al., 2018). Precisely because of this, researchers are increasingly pointing to the importance of leadership and organizational culture in shaping the perception and support of proactive employee behavior (Chouchane & St-Jean, 2023; Moghaddas et al., 2020).

Leadership and Organizational Culture as Moderators of the Relationship Between Job Burnout and Intrapreneurship

Transformational and ethical leadership represent key styles that contribute to the creation of an organizational climate based on psychological safety, innovation and employee well-being (Jia et al., 2022; Marquardt et al., 2022). Transformational leaders, through intellectual stimulation and individualized appreciation, legitimize initiatives that come “from below” and thus enhance the effects of intrapreneurship (Díaz-Fúnez et al., 2021; Huynh, 2021). This creates an environment in which intrapreneurial initiatives are perceived as supported and safe, which increases their protective effect on employee well-being, and theoretically justifies the hypothesized moderating effect stated in H2. On the other hand, ethical leadership focuses on integrity, fairness, and caring for employees, which fosters trust and reduces the risk of negative consequences of proactive behavior (Brown et al., 2005; Mozie & Mahadi, 2024). Given that ethical leaders reduce uncertainty and emotional pressure through fair and transparent communication, it is possible to expect that ethical leadership additionally strengthens the negative relationship between intrapreneurship and burnout, which is consistent with H3. Punitive or authoritarian leadership is characterized by strict control, punishment for mistakes, and reliance on fear-based authority rather than support or developmental guidance (B. Liu et al., 2024; S. Liu & Ling, 2025). Such leaders tend to suppress risk-taking, discourage upward communication, and create a climate in which employees avoid initiatives that could expose them to criticism or sanctions (Ma & Yang, 2022). Intrapreneurial behavior in these conditions becomes psychologically costly, as employees perceive proactive actions as risky and potentially punishable (Du et al., 2022; S. Liu & Ling, 2025; Ma & Yang, 2022). Such an environment increases the psychological risk of intrapreneurial behavior, and can neutralize its potentially protective effects, thereby theoretically supporting the assumption from H4. The quality of the relationship between the leader and team members (LMX) also plays an important role in this process. High-quality LMX relationships, which imply mutual respect, trust and loyalty, enhance the psychological and motivational benefits that employees experience through proactive engagement (Latifoglu et al., 2023; Mulligan et al., 2021; Yikilmaz et al., 2024). This explains why high-quality LMX can strengthen the protective role of intrapreneurial activities and moderate the relationship between intrapreneurship and job burnout, in accordance with H5. These effects correspond with Social Exchange Theory, which holds that employees are more willing to invest additional effort and engage in proactive behavior when they perceive support, fairness, and reciprocity in their relationships with supervisors (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Qian et al., 2017). Within the JD-R model, leadership styles and the quality of LMX relationships serve as crucial social resources that can moderate the demands associated with proactive behavior and prevent intrapreneurship from becoming an added source of strain (Gawke et al., 2018; C. Rigtering et al., 2024; Tummers & Bakker, 2021).

In parallel, organizational culture shapes norms and expectations regarding desirable behaviors in the work environment. Cultural dimensions such as power distance, collectivism and human orientation play a key role in how intrapreneurial behaviors are perceived and valued by peers and superiors (House et al., 2004; Zheng et al., 2025). In cultures with higher power distance, intrapreneurial behavior is often viewed as a privilege granted through the support of superiors, which can enhance its positive effect on employee well-being (M. Li & Rasiah, 2025; Klein & Ben-Hador, 2025), consistent with H6. Collectivistic values strengthen the sense of community and mutual support, thereby reducing emotional exhaustion and enhancing the positive role of intrapreneurship (Jaakson & Ashyrov, 2022; Ocak et al., 2025), which theoretically supports H7. However, in cultures with a strong performance orientation, intrapreneurial activities may increase employee demands or lead to overload (Escandon-Barbosa et al., 2022; Kundu et al., 2025; Smollan & Mooney, 2024), which explains the hypothesized positive moderating effect in H8. An environment characterized by strong human orientation provides support, psychological safety, and an altruistic climate (Edmondson & Bransby, 2023; Lašáková et al., 2025; Ollier-Malaterre et al., 2020), thereby strengthening the protective effect of intrapreneurship and theoretically supporting H9. These cultural dimensions are consistent with insights from the GLOBE and Hofstede frameworks, both of which emphasize how organizational norms shape the acceptability and value of proactive behavior (House et al., 1999, 2002, 2004; Zheng et al., 2025). In JD-R terms, culture can expand or restrict employees’ access to social and psychological resources, thereby influencing whether intrapreneurship acts as a protective factor against burnout or increases overall job demands (Lopez-Martin & Topa, 2019).

In addition to organizational and leadership factors, it is important to take into account the characteristics of the employees themselves and the company. Demographic variables such as gender, age, education and level of position in the hierarchy can influence the experience of stress and resistance to burnout, as well as the tendency to proactive behavior. Also, company characteristics, including ownership structure (public and private), activity (manufacturing and service) and organizational size, can significantly shape the organizational context in which intrapreneurship takes place, as well as the availability of resources for burnout prevention.

Research Problem

In the modern business environment, characterized by dynamic changes, accelerated digitization, and increasing competitive pressures, organizations face growing psychological risks among employees, particularly in the form of emotional exhaustion and job burnout (Salvagioni et al., 2017; Soares et al., 2023). A key challenge involves identifying organizational factors that can mitigate the negative effects of job stressors and support employee well-being. Although previous studies suggest that intrapreneurial behavior may act as a resilience factor (Moghaddas et al., 2020; Ravina-Ripoll et al., 2023), empirical evidence on its direct protective effect against job burnout remains limited and often inconsistent (Acar et al., 2024; Chouchane & St-Jean, 2023; Gawke et al., 2018). Furthermore, little is known about the organizational conditions under which intrapreneurship brings the most beneficial outcomes, particularly regarding the moderating roles of leadership, LMX, and organizational culture (Ensour & Al Maaitah, 2024; Gorgievski et al., 2023). This research gap is especially evident in transition economies, where organizational systems and HR practices are still evolving, and where empirical evidence on the relationship between proactive behavior or intrapreneurship and employee well-being remains largely absent.

Research Focus

The subject of this research is the analysis of the impact of intrapreneurship on the level of employee burnout, while considering the moderating role of different leadership styles (transformational, transactional, ethical and punitive) and dimensions of organizational culture (power distance, collectivism, performance orientation and human orientation), as well as the quality of the leader-member relationship (LMX).

A special focus is placed on middle management, which in organizations has a key role in the implementation of innovations, balancing between strategic and operational requirements, and at the same time is highly exposed to organizational pressures and stress. Examining this target group contributes to a better understanding of the conditions under which intrapreneurial behavior can be an effective protection against job burnout.

Research Objective

The aim of this research is to examine the direct effect of intrapreneurship on the level of employee burnout, as well as to determine whether and to what extent this relationship depends on the moderating influence of leadership styles (transformational, transactional, ethical and punitive), the quality of the leader-member relationship (LMX) and dimensions of organizational culture (power distance, collectivism, performance orientation and human orientation). Also, based on the obtained results, the aim of the research is to form a model for reducing employee burnout, as well as providing specific guidelines and recommendations for practice and further research.

Research Hypotheses

Based on the objective of the research and the previously discussed theoretical background, the following hypotheses were formulated.

Prior studies indicate that intrapreneurial behavior can reduce emotional exhaustion and enhance employee well-being (Kuhlmann & Süß, 2024; Shaheen et al., 2024), providing the theoretical basis for H1.

Main hypothesis (H1):

Empirical research shows that leadership styles significantly shape the outcomes of proactive behaviors such as intrapreneurship (Brown et al., 2005; Díaz-Fúnez et al., 2021; Huynh, 2021; Mozie & Mahadi, 2024). These findings support the development of hypotheses related to the moderating role of leadership (H2-H5).

Hypotheses on the moderating effects of leadership:

Organizational culture has been shown to influence how intrapreneurial behavior is expressed and how its psychological consequences unfold (Ahmetoglu et al., 2018; Da Cunha De Elias et al., 2024; House et al., 2004). These theoretical insights provide justification for the culture-related hypotheses (H6–H9).

Hypotheses on the moderating effects of organizational culture:

Sample

The study was conducted on a sample of N = 406 middle-level managers employed in small, medium, and large enterprises in the Republic of Serbia. The sample includes organizations from various sectors, manufacturing, services, trade, and the IT industry, with differences in company size and years of operation.

A purposive sampling strategy was used to select participants, meaning that respondents were chosen based on their professional relevance to the research objectives rather than through random selection. This approach made it possible to include managers with direct experience in leading teams and participating in organizational processes, which was essential for testing the proposed hypotheses (Etikan, 2016). Data were collected through an online questionnaire in June 2025, distributed via email and professional networks (LinkedIn, business associations). The research team invited approximately 600 potential participants, of whom 406 completed the survey, resulting in a response rate of 68%. Only respondents holding middle-level managerial positions were included in the analysis. The questionnaire was designed to prevent partial responses, ensuring high data quality.

The sample size in this study was determined based on a combination of theoretical recommendations and statistical criteria for multiple regression analysis. According to the guidelines provided by Hair et al. (2010) and Tabachnick and Fidell (2019), the minimum number of participants required for a stable and reliable estimation of a regression model can be calculated using the formula: N ≥ 50 + 8 m, where m represents the number of independent variables included in the model.

In this study, the model includes four main independent variables (LMX quality, leadership behavior, organizational culture, and intrapreneurship), which means that the minimum required sample size would be N = 82. Therefore, the sample of 406 respondents greatly exceeds the recommended threshold, ensuring high statistical power and stability of the regression estimates.

In addition, the sample size was evaluated based on recommendations for factor analysis, which suggest using at least 5 to 10 participants per item or more than 300 participants in total to ensure adequate factor stability (Comrey & Lee, 1992). Since the questionnaire used in this study contains more than 40 items, the sample of 406 respondents fully meets these requirements as well.

Although the sample includes organizations of different sizes, a larger number of respondents come from large companies. This disproportion stems from their greater availability and more active presence on professional networks (e.g., LinkedIn). Consequently, the sample is not statistically representative of the population of managers in Serbia. However, it is theoretically adequate, as it contains sufficient variation in organizational characteristics and managerial positions to reliably examine the theoretical relationships between the constructs (Calder et al., 1981; Hair et al., 2010).

Instruments

For the purposes of the research, structured questionnaires were used, consisting of validated scales for measuring all relevant constructs. The scales were translated and adapted based on previous research, using a seven-point Likert scale (1—strongly disagree, 7—strongly agree). A seven-point Likert scale was used in this study, as it provides a higher level of response discrimination and thus increases variability and measurement sensitivity compared to scales with fewer categories (Krosnick & Fabrigar, 1997). Seven-point scales are particularly suitable for quantitative research in management, psychology, and organizational behavior because they allow respondents to express more nuanced attitudes while remaining simple and easy to understand (Preston & Colman, 2000). Moreover, empirical research shows that seven-point scales offer an optimal balance between reliability and respondents’ cognitive load, whereas increasing the number of categories further (e.g., to 9 or 11) does not substantially improve precision (Finstad, 2010). For clarity regarding the total number of variables included in the study, a complete list of all constructs and their corresponding measurement items is provided in Supplemental Appendix A.

Operationalization and Conceptual Treatment of Multidimensional Constructs

This study examined conceptually complex phenomena, namely intrapreneurship, job burnout, LMX, and leadership, which are theoretically defined as multidimensional constructs. However, in line with the results of the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and recommendations from relevant methodological literature, they were treated as unidimensional composite indices (Hair et al., 2010; Preston & Colman, 2000). The EFA results showed that the items for each scale clustered predominantly around a single latent factor, with satisfactory factor loadings (λ > 0.60) and total explained variance exceeding 70%. These findings indicate construct homogeneity and justify aggregating the items into a single index, which preserves theoretical coherence while simplifying the statistical modeling of relationships among variables.

The only exception is organizational culture, which was operationalized through four dimensions identified within the GLOBE project. These dimensions were treated as separate predictors in the regression analysis, allowing for a more precise examination of the differentiated effects of various cultural aspects on employee burnout. This approach is consistent with the theoretical foundations and prior empirical findings on the influence of organizational culture dimensions on employees’ psychological outcomes (House et al., 1999, 2002, 2004).

In this way, although the constructs are nominally multidimensional, modeling the scales as composite indices (with the exception of organizational culture) enabled clear statistical testing of the proposed theoretical model while avoiding issues of multicollinearity and unnecessary model complexity.

Reliability and Validity of the Instruments

This section of the paper presents the validation of the measurement instruments used in the study, as well as the rationale for selecting the statistical methods applied in the subsequent data analysis. The validation process includes assessing reliability using Cronbach’s alpha, establishing construct validity through exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and conducting checks for multicollinearity and common method bias (Harman’s test). This approach ensures that the measurement instruments are appropriate and provides a solid foundation for conducting the hierarchical regression analysis.

Reliability of the Scales (Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient)

The reliability of all measurement scales used in this study was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, which evaluates the degree of internal consistency among items within each construct. According to Nunnally’s (1978) criteria, values of α≥.70 indicate acceptable reliability, while values above 0.90 reflect exceptionally high internal consistency (which is expected when constructs are homogeneous and consist of a smaller number of items). The results presented in Table 1 show that all applied scales achieve reliability coefficients ranging from 0.819 to 0.921, demonstrating that the instruments used in the study reliably measure the examined constructs.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Reliability of the Scales (Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient).

Construct/Scale dimension	Number of items	Cronbach’s α
Leader-Member Exchange (LMX)
Set 1 (VAR00171–173)	3	.865
Set 2 (VAR00175–177)	3	.918
Set 3 (VAR00179–181)	3	.848
Set 4 (VAR00183–185)	3	.919
Leadership
Set 1 (VAR00132–134)	3	.915
Set 2 (VAR00136–138)	3	.892
Set 3 (VAR00140–143)	4	.914
Set 4 (VAR00145–148)	4	.917
Set 5 (VAR00150–153)	4	.915
Set 6 (VAR00155–157)	3	.901
Organizational culture
Set 1 (VAR00111–113)	3	.826
Set 2 (VAR00115–118)	4	.912
Set 3 (VAR00120–123)	4	.819
Set 4 (VAR00125–129)	5	.902
Professional burnout	7	.921
Intrapreneurship
Set 1 (VAR00030–34)	5	.868
Set 2 (VAR00036–40)	5	.919
Set 3 (VAR00042–47)	6	.905
Set 4 (VAR00049–55)	7	.916

Construct Validity of the Instruments (EFA)

To assess construct validity, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted for all scales used in the study. The analysis was performed using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with Varimax rotation and Kaiser normalization. The results showed that the KMO values exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.70, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was statistically significant (p < .001), indicating that the data were suitable for factor analysis.

All item factor loadings exceeded 0.60, indicating satisfactory convergent validity, while items were clearly grouped according to their respective dimensions, confirming discriminant validity. Following the recommendations of Hair et al. (2010), only factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 were retained, and the total explained variance for each scale exceeded 50%, providing additional evidence for the adequacy of the factor solution.

Detailed results of the exploratory factor analysis for all applied scales are presented in Supplemental Appendix B (Tables 1–5). The obtained reliability and construct validity indicators confirm that the instruments used in the study adequately measure the examined constructs, ensuring their reliable application in the subsequent analyses.

Assessment of Multicollinearity

Multicollinearity was assessed using regression analysis in SPSS and is presented in Table 2. In this procedure, job burnout was used as the dependent variable, while the following constructs served as predictors: LMX quality, leadership behavior, organizational culture, and intrapreneurship.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Results of Regression Analysis and Multicollinearity Diagnostics.

Predictor	β (Standardized)	t	Sig. (p)	Tolerance	VIF
LMX	–.290	–4.922	.000	0.744	1.343
Leadership behavior	.090	1.061	.290	0.365	2.742
Organizational culture	–.192	–2.985	.003	0.550	1.819
Intrapreneurship	–.168	–3.164	.002	0.823	1.214

Note. Dependent variable—Job burnout; entry method—Enter. R² = 0.216; F(4, 401) = 27.643; p < .001.

The analysis was conducted using the Enter method. The model was statistically significant and explained 21.6% of the variance in the dependent variable (R² = .216; F(4, 401) = 27.643; p < .001). Three predictors had a significant negative effect on burnout: LMX quality (β = –0.290; p < .001), organizational culture (β = –0.192; p = .003), and intrapreneurship (β = –0.168; p = .002), while leadership behavior did not show a significant influence (β = .090; p = .290).

To assess multicollinearity, the values of the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF), tolerance, and Condition Index were examined. All VIF values were below the recommended threshold of 5, and tolerance scores were higher than 0.20. The highest Condition Index was 21.599, which is well below the critical value of 30 (Hair et al., 2010). These results indicate that there is no multicollinearity among the predictors that would compromise the stability of the regression model.

Assessment of Common Method Bias (Harman’s Single-Factor Test)

Common method bias was assessed using Harman’s single-factor test. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted using Principal Component Analysis without rotation, and all standardized items from the applied scales were included in the analysis: intrapreneurship, job burnout, LMX, leadership, and organizational culture.

The results of the analysis (Table 3) show that the first factor accounts for 39.66% of the total variance, which is below the recommended threshold of 40%. This indicates that common method bias is not substantially present, suggesting that the variance in the items primarily reflects true differences between constructs rather than being influenced by a shared measurement source.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Results of Harman’s Single-Factor Test.

Factor	Eigenvalue	% Explained variance	Cumulative %
1	29.74	39.66	39.66
2	5.12	6.98	46.64
3	3.87	5.32	51.96
4	2.95	4.10	56.06
5	2.22	3.08	59.14

Note. The table presents the values of the first five factors obtained through exploratory factor analysis without rotation (Unrotated solution). The analysis was conducted using standardized items from all scales applied in the study.

Based on these results, it can be concluded that common method bias did not meaningfully compromise measurement validity, and that the observed relationships between constructs can be considered reliable and independent of the measurement source.

Procedure

To test the hypotheses regarding the effects of intrapreneurship and organizational factors on employee burnout, hierarchical multiple regression analysis was used. This method allows for examining both direct and moderating effects of predictor variables on the dependent variable by sequentially adding blocks of predictors (Aiken & West, 1991; Hair et al., 2010; Hayes, 2022). The selection of this technique is aligned with the aim of the study, namely, identifying conditional (interaction) relationships within the organizational context that influence managerial burnout.

The analysis was conducted across three models:

All continuous predictors were standardized (Z-scores) to reduce collinearity prior to forming the interaction terms. Changes in explained variance (ΔR²) and the F-test were used to evaluate the contribution of each model, along with the interpretation of standardized coefficients (β).

Descriptive Statistics

Table 4 shows descriptive statistics for the main variables in the research related to the connection between intrapreneurship and job burnout, with the role of dimensions of organizational culture, leadership and the quality of the relationship with the leader (LMX relationship).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 4.

Descriptive statistics for research variables.

Contructs	N	Min	Max	Mean	Std. Deviation	Skewness	Kurtosis
	Statistic	Statistic	Statistic	Statistic	Statistic	Statistic	Std. Error
INTRAPRENEURSHIP	406	1.35	6.96	4.9240	1.23230	−0.626	0.121
BURNOUT	406	1.00	7.00	3.3683	1.61985	0.651	0.121
Power distance	406	1.00	7.00	3.2866	1.39610	0.547	0.121
Human orientation	406	1.50	7.00	4.5431	1.49154	−0.254	0.121
Performance orientation	406	1.50	7.00	4.6650	1.36564	−0.566	0.121
Collectivism 2	406	1.60	7.00	4.6946	1.38561	−0.340	0.121
Core transformational leader behavior	406	1.00	7.00	5.1380	1.65963	−1.050	0.121
Having high performance expectations	406	1.00	7.00	5.4442	1.34013	−1.133	0.121
Providing individualized support (empathy and understanding)	406	1.00	7.00	4.5653	1.74750	−0.453	0.121
Providing intellectual stimulation	406	1.00	7.00	4.8399	1.60292	−0.813	0.121
Contingent reward behavior	406	1.00	7.00	5.1084	1.71187	−0.829	0.121
Contingent punishment behavior	406	1.00	7.00	4.8681	1.46312	−0.543	0.121
ETHICAL LEADERSHIP	406	1.00	7.00	4.9828	1.52887	−0.790	0.121
Affect	406	1.00	7.00	5.3556	1.42032	−0.818	0.121
Loyalty	406	1.00	7.00	4.8545	1.64870	−0.661	0.121
Contribution	406	1.00	7.00	5.3933	1.34443	−1.026	0.121
Professional respect	406	1.00	7.00	5.1232	1.79286	−0.932	0.121
Valid N (listwise)	406

Each variable shown in Table 4 is covered by basic statistical indicators, that is, the number of respondents, minimum and maximum values, mean value, standard deviation, as well as indicators of the shape of the distribution (asymmetry and roundness).

Based on the descriptive statistics analysis, it was observed that the dimension “Contribution,” which reflects employee’s willingness to work for the superior, has the highest average value with a mean value of 5.39, which indicates that the respondents are loyal employees dedicated to the manager. The lowest average value is observed for the burnout construct, which may mean a lower degree of emotional exhaustion among employees, although the standard deviation shows pronounced differences among respondents. The coefficients of asymmetry are negative for most variables, which means that there is a slight asymmetry toward the higher values of the scale, that is, the tendency of the respondents to rate most of them above the average. The most pronounced negative asymmetry is observed in the dimensions “Professional respect” and “Contribution.” Roundness coefficients are mostly within normal limits, except for a few dimensions such as “Having high performance expectations ” and “Contribution,” which indicates a slightly higher concentration of results around the mean value, that is, lower dispersion. According to the obtained values, it can be concluded that most variables have a satisfactory distribution for further statistical analyses.

Correlation Analysis

Table 5 shows Pearson’s correlation coefficients between the level of job burnout and the main theoretical constructs included in the analysis. The aim of this review is a preliminary assessment of the direction and strength of the relationship before conducting a multiple regression analysis, in order to identify potentially significant predictors and moderators in further statistical processing.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 5.

Pearson Correlations Between Job Burnout and the Main Research Variables.

Variable	r (with burnout)
BURNOUT	1.000
New business venturing	−.307***
Product/service innovativeness	−.274***
Process/technology innovativeness	−.241***
Self-renewal	−.386***
Power distance	.677***
Human orientation	−.457***
Performance orientation	−.48***
Collectivism	−.507***
Core transformational leader behavior	−.406***
Having high performance expectations	−.195***
Providing individualized support (empathy and understanding)	−.333***
Providing intellectual stimulation	−.343***
Contingent reward behavior	−.407***
Contingent punishment behavior	.132
Ethical leadership	−.439***
Affect	−.461***
Loyalty	−.338***
Contribution	−.335***
Professional respect	−.295***

***

p < .001.

A correlational analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between employee burnout and key theoretical constructs, including dimensions of intrapreneurship, leadership styles, leader-member relationship quality (LMX), and organizational culture characteristics. The results indicate several statistically significant and theoretically relevant connections.

The strongest positive correlation was observed between job burnout and the perception of power distance in the organization (r = .677, p < .001), which suggests that pronounced hierarchical differences may contribute to a higher level of emotional exhaustion of employees. In contrast, several constructive factors show a strong negative association with burnout, indicating their potential protective role.

Collectivism (r = –0.507, p < .001), performance orientation (r = –0.480, p < .001), human orientation (r = –0.457, p < .001) and ethical leadership behavior (r = –0.439, p < .001) show significant negative correlations with employee burnout. Core transformational leader behavior (r = –0.406), providing intellectual stimulation (r = –0.343), providing individualized support (r = –0.333), was also significantly negatively related to emotional exhaustion. Rewards, as part of incentive behavior, show an additional negative association with employee burnout (r = –0.407, p < .001).

Aspects of the leader-member relationship (LMX) such as professional respect (r = –0.461), loyalty (r = –0.338) and contribution (r = –0.335) are negatively related to employee burnout, thus confirming the importance of interpersonal relationships in preserving the psychological well-being of employees. Professional respect shows a slightly weaker, but still negative correlation (r = –0.295).

When it comes to intrapreneurship dimensions, all components show negative correlations with employee burnout: self-renewal (r = –0.386), new business venturing (r = –0.307), product/service innovativeness (r = –0.274) and process/technology innovativeness (r = –0.241). These findings indicate that proactive and innovative employee behavior can contribute to reducing job burnout.

Contingent punishment behavior shows a positive but weak correlation with employee burnout (r = .132), which is not statistically significant. Although this result does not confirm the direct association of punitive leadership with emotional exhaustion of employees, the variable is still included in further analysis due to its theoretical importance and the set moderator hypothesis.

All correlations significant at the p < .01 level (except for the contingent punishment behavior) support the theoretical assumptions about the role of intrapreneurship, leadership, organizational culture and quality relations with superiors in the prevention of burnout syndrome at work.

Regression Analysis

Table 6 shows a summary of the hierarchical regression analysis conducted in three steps, with the aim of examining the contribution of intrapreneurship in the prediction of job burnout, as well as the additional effects of leadership styles, organizational culture and their mutual interactions.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 6.

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis.

Model	R	R 2	Adjusted R2	ΔR2	F Change	Sig.
Model 1	.467	.218	.202	.218	13.814	.000
Model 2	.827	.684	.665	.466	37.503	.000
Model 3	.855	.73	.703	.047	4.25	.000

In Model 1, which includes control variables and intrapreneurial dimensions, 21.8% of the variance in job burnout is explained (R² = .218, F(8, 397) = 13.81, p < .001). By introducing leadership styles and dimensions of organizational culture in Model 2, the explained variance increases significantly to 68.4% (ΔR² = 0.466, p < .001). Finally, by including interaction (moderator) terms in Model 3, the total explained variance of burnout reaches 73.0% (ΔR² = .047, F(15, 367) = 4.25, p < .001), indicating a significant contribution of moderating effects.

Table 7 shows the results of the ANOVA test for all three regression hierarchical stages, which evaluates the statistical significance of the overall model in predicting employee burnout.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 7.

ANOVA Summary for Hierarchical Regression.

Model	Sum of squares	df	Mean square	F	Sig.
Model 1—Regression	88.189	8	11.024	13.814	.000
Model 1—Residual	316.811	397	0.798
Model 1—Total	405.000	405
Model 2—Regression	276.873	23	12.038	35.890	.000
Model 2—Residual	128.127	382	0.335
Model 2—Total	405.000	405
Model 3—Regression	295.834	38	7.785	26.173	.000
Model 3—Residual	109.166	367	0.297
Model 3—Total	405.000	405

Note. The dependent variable is job burnout. Model 1 includes control variables and dimensions of intrapreneurship; Model 2 includes leadership styles and organizational culture; Model 3 includes interaction (moderator) variables.

The results of ANOVA tests in Table 7 show that all models are statistically significant. The basic model including only control variables and intrapreneurial dimensions was significant (F(8, 397) = 13.81, p < .001), while the extended model with leadership and cultural dimensions showed additional predictive power (F(23, 382) = 35.89, p < .001). In the final model that includes interaction (moderator) variables, the predictive ability of the model remains high and statistically significant (F(38, 367) = 26.17, p < .001), confirming the importance of including moderator effects in explaining job burnout.

Table 8 shows the results of the hierarchical regression analysis, where the direct and moderated effects of intrapreneurship, different dimensions of leadership and organizational culture on the level of employee burnout were analyzed.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 8.

Hierarchical Regression Coefficients.

Model	Predictor	B	Beta	Sig.
Model 1	Company activity	−0.554	−0.253	.000
Model 1	Self-renewal	−0.335	−0.335	.000
Model 2	Power distance	0.584	0.584	.000
Model 2	Collectivism 2	−0.249	−0.249	.000
Model 2	Contingent punishment behavior	0.219	0.219	.000
Model 3	Contingent punishment behavior	0.270	0.270	.000
Model 3	Ethical leadership	0.153	0.153	.091
Model 3	Intrapreneurship × Contingent punishment behavior	−0.154	−0.170	.000
Model 3	Intrapreneurship × Ethical leadership	−0.490	−0.571	.000
Model 3	Intrapreneurship × Human orientation	−0.174	−0.194	.010
Model 3	Intrapreneurship × Performance orientation	0.280	0.320	.002
Model 3	Intrapreneurship × Professional respect	0.206	0.240	.004
Model 3	Intrapreneurship × Loyalty	−0.227	−0.260	.000

Note. The dependent variable is burnout. Unstandardized (B) and standardized (Beta) regression coefficients for all three models are shown.

The results of the regression analysis in Table 8 show that only the dimension “Self-renewal” within intrapreneurship significantly reduces the level of burnout (β = –.335, p < .001). By adding leadership styles and organizational culture (Model 2), it was found that power distance and punitive leadership behavior significantly contribute to greater employee burnout, while collectivism and ethical leadership have a protective effect. Finally, in Model 3, it was shown that the effect of intrapreneurship on employee burnout depends on the level of ethical leadership, punitive leadership, human orientation and LMX relationship, with the interaction with ethical leadership being the most pronounced (β = –.571, p < .001), confirming its key moderating role.

The Influence of Control Variables on Job Burnout

In order to understand the relationship between intrapreneurship and employee burnout more precisely, as well as the effects of moderator variables, relevant control variables were also included in the analysis: gender of respondents, gender of supervisor, ownership structure and company activity. Their role was to identify potential sources of variance that are not part of the theoretical framework but that may affect the dependent variable.

Gender of respondents and gender of supervisor: In all three regression models, respondent’s gender and supervisor’s gender did not show a statistically significant effect on the level of job burnout. The coefficients were small and statistically non-relevant (e.g., Model 1—respondent’s gender: β = –.044, p = .653; superior’s gender: β = –.156, p = .136), which indicates that these characteristics do not contribute to the explanation of emotional exhaustion within the analyzed sample of middle management.

Ownership structure of the company: The variable is coded so that 1 indicates state-owned and 2 private companies. In Model 1, a negative but statistically insignificant effect was recorded (β = –.156, p = .186), which would suggest a lower level of burnout among employees in private firms. This pattern remains present in Models 2 and 3 (β = –.088, p = .280; β = .004, p = .957), and ownership structure cannot be considered a reliable predictor.

Company activity: Unlike the previous variables, the activity of the company, coded as 1 = service, 2 = production, proved to be a consistent and significant predictor of job burnout in all models (Model 1: β = –.554, p < .001; Model 2: β = –.248, p = .001; Model 3: β = –.233, p = .002). These findings indicate that employees in production sectors have a lower level of emotional exhaustion compared to their colleagues in service industries. The difference may be due to the greater exposure to interpersonal demands, emotional regulation and interaction with users in service sectors, as opposed to tasks of a technical nature that prevail in production environments.

The results indicate that, although gender and ownership structure do not have a significant contribution in explaining job burnout, company activity has proven to be an important control variable, which illuminates structural differences in working conditions and provides a context for more effective implementation of intrapreneurial initiatives in different sectors.

Integrative Theoretical Synthesis

Across all tested hypotheses, the findings collectively demonstrate that intrapreneurship operates as a context-dependent psychological resource. While the JD-R framework typically explains burnout through the balance of demands and resources, the present study extends this model by showing that intrapreneurship can shift this balance only when specific leadership and cultural conditions signal safety, fairness and support. Ethical leadership and LMX loyalty emerge as relational mechanisms that activate the protective potential of proactive behavior, whereas punitive leadership and high power distance suppress it by increasing psychological demands. Cultural dimensions such as collectivism, human orientation and performance orientation create institutional environments in which intrapreneurship becomes psychologically sustainable. Taken together, these findings integrate resource-based, relational and cultural perspectives, offering a more comprehensive understanding of when and how proactive behavior reduces emotional exhaustion. This synthesis positions intrapreneurship as a relationally and culturally embedded mechanism of psychological resilience.

Based on research results and confirmed hypotheses, a model of the influence of intrapreneurship and moderating variables on job burnout was developed and presented in Figure 2.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

A model of the influence of intrapreneurship and moderating variables on job burnout.

The presented model shows the influence of intrapreneurship on job burnout, as well as the positive and negative relationships of the analyzed moderators on job burnout.

The findings confirm that intrapreneurship functions as a significant psychological resource, but its effectiveness depends on the quality of leadership, organizational climate and interpersonal relationships. The research contributes to the literature on proactive behavior and organizational health, emphasizing that intrapreneurship does not operate in a vacuum, but in dynamic conjunction with the organization’s value system. The findings are in accordance with existing research (Adel & Messallam, 2021; Alghamdi & Badawi, 2023; Chouchane et al., 2023).

Practical implications include the need to develop leaders who foster ethical values, strengthen LMX relationships based on trust and shape a culture that encourages innovation while protecting employees’ mental health. The findings of this work can serve as a basis for designing integrated HR strategies that balance productivity and psychological sustainability of the work environment.

Theoretical Implications

This study offers several important theoretical contributions to the literature on intrapreneurship, leadership and employee well-being. First, the findings position intrapreneurship as a meaningful job resource within the JD–R framework, showing that proactive behavior does not simply reduce burnout through individual motivation, but through mechanisms of cognitive reframing, increased autonomy and self-directed adaptation to job demands. This expands existing intrapreneurship theory by highlighting its protective function.

Second, the results demonstrate that the effectiveness of intrapreneurship depends strongly on the interpersonal and cultural context, suggesting that intrapreneurial behavior cannot be isolated from leadership dynamics and organizational values. Ethical leadership and LMX loyalty emerged as key relational mechanisms that enhance the resource value of intrapreneurship, providing theoretical grounding for the importance of psychological safety in enabling proactive behavior to function as a buffer against emotional exhaustion.

Third, the study contributes to leadership theory by showing that not all leadership styles are equally relevant for employee well-being. Transformational leadership did not play a significant moderating role, whereas ethical leadership and punitive styles had strong opposite effects. This finding advances theory by clarifying that moral and relational components of leadership, rather than inspirational components, are central to the effectiveness of intrapreneurship in reducing job burnout.

Finally, the results add to organizational culture theory by demonstrating that value systems such as collectivism, human orientation and performance orientation create conditions under which intrapreneurship becomes psychologically sustainable. Conversely, high power distance increases job demands and weakens the protective role of proactive behavior. These findings highlight the contextual nature of intrapreneurship and emphasize that cultural norms shape the mechanisms through which proactive behavior affects employee well-being.

Practical Implications

The findings of this study offer several important implications for organizational practice. First, the confirmation of ethical leadership as a key moderator suggests that organizations should prioritize the development of leadership styles grounded in moral decision-making, fairness and transparency. Investing in leadership training that emphasizes ethical behavior, as well as mentoring programs in which experienced managers model these values, can contribute to the creation of a psychologically safe environment in which proactive employee behavior is encouraged rather than perceived as risky. Regular evaluation of leadership practices may also help identify styles that support a healthier organizational climate.

Second, the significant role of loyalty in LMX relationships highlights the importance of building strong, trust-based interactions between leaders and employees. Leaders should cultivate open communication, an individualized approach and a deeper understanding of employees’ personal and professional needs. Regular one-on-one meetings and supportive dialog can enhance psychological security, enabling employees to sustain proactive behavior even in demanding work environments.

Third, cultural values such as collectivism, human orientation and performance orientation demonstrated strong potential in reducing burnout and increasing the positive effects of intrapreneurship. Organizations should therefore work on developing a culture of mutual support and cooperation, particularly in teams exposed to emotional pressures. At the same time, performance-oriented values should be applied in a balanced and transparent manner, ensuring that proactive behavior is clearly recognized and rewarded without generating unnecessary pressure.

Fourth, the negative effects of contingent punishment and high power distance indicate that authoritarian and overly hierarchical leadership styles can suppress the protective role of intrapreneurship. Organizations should reduce rigid formal barriers, encourage open communication and provide employees with greater autonomy. Training programs that promote democratic and participative leadership styles may be especially valuable in companies that traditionally rely on strong hierarchical structures.

Finally, the findings emphasize the critical role of middle management, particularly in transition economies. Strengthening the competencies of middle managers through specialized training and decision-making support can enhance their ability to balance innovation demands with employee well-being. It is also important that organizations regularly assess the alignment between their levels of intrapreneurship, cultural practices and employee well-being indicators in order to adjust HR strategies and ensure sustainable organizational functioning.

Research Limitations and Future Research

This study has several limitations that should be taken into account when interpreting the findings. First, the research was conducted at a single point in time using cross-sectional self-report data, which prevents drawing conclusions about causal relationships between intrapreneurship and job burnout. In addition, the exclusive reliance on self-report questionnaires may introduce subjective biases related to individual perceptions and response tendencies. The sample was obtained through purposive sampling and included only employees from Serbia, which limits the generalizability of the results to other national and cultural contexts. Furthermore, the study did not include objective indicators of burnout, such as absenteeism, turnover intentions or physiological stress markers, which may offer a more comprehensive assessment of employees’ well-being.

Another noteworthy limitation concerns the organizational structure of the sample. A substantial proportion of the respondents came from medium-sized and large enterprises, which may influence the external validity of the findings. The observed relationships primarily reflect dynamics characteristic of more complex organizational systems, where patterns of leadership, communication structures, and intrapreneurial behavior differ from those found in micro and small enterprises. As a result, the generalizability of the findings to smaller organizations may be limited, and the results should be interpreted with caution in this regard.

These limitations open several directions for future research. Longitudinal studies would allow researchers to examine how intrapreneurship and job burnout unfold over time and whether proactive behavior has a cumulative protective effect. Future studies should also incorporate objective measures of well-being and performance, including behavioral or physiological indicators, in order to validate the perceptual data. Qualitative methods, such as interviews or focus groups, may further demonstrate how employees interpret leadership behavior, organizational support and cultural norms when engaging in intrapreneurial activities. In addition, future research would benefit from using stratified or targeted sampling strategies that ensure greater representation of micro and small enterprises, enabling a more comprehensive understanding of whether the identified effects hold across different organizational sizes. Finally, comparative studies across different countries and organizational contexts could help determine whether the moderating effects observed in this research, especially those related to leadership style, LMX loyalty and cultural values, are universal or context-specific.