The influence of uncertainty avoidance and future orientation on intrapreneurship in the Norwegian corporations

The influence of uncertainty avoidance and future orientation on intrapreneurship in

the Norwegian corporations

Case study DNV GL and Schibsted

MSc Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management 120 credits

Department of Informatic

Faculty of Mathematic and Natural Science

15^th of June 2020

Uswatun Hasanah Isna Kamalia

intrapreneurship in the Norwegian corporations

Case study DNV GL and Schibsted

Uswatun Hasanah Isna Kamalia

Supervisor: Professor WSR Steffen Korsgaard

© Uswatun Hasanah Isna Kamalia 2020

The influence of uncertainty avoidance and future orientation on intrapreneurship in the Norwegian corporations

https://www.duo.uio.no/

Print: University Print Centre, Universitetet I Oslo

Abstract

Previous studies show that culture can influence intrapreneurship in a corporation. However, there is limited study on specific cultural domains especially in the case of the Norwegian corporations. Uncertainty avoidance and future orientation are culture domains that could influence intrapreneurship in an organization. According to previous measurements by Hofstede and GLOBAL, Norway is known to have a high level of these domains. However, there is no research to elaborate the influence of these domains on intrapreneurship in the Norwegian corporation thus far. The objective of this research is to elaborate the influence of uncertainty avoidance and future orientation on intrapreneurial activity within Norwegian corporations. This research will also provide some suggestions on how management should deal with Norwegian culture to improve intrapreneurship activity within the organization.

The study follows Yin’s methodology using pattern matching by including initial propositions. The three initial propositions for this study are: (1) Norwegian corporation organization culture is influenced by national culture values, (2) Manifestation of high-level uncertainty avoidance negatively influences intrapreneurship in the Norwegian corporation and (3) High level Future orientation positively influences the intrapreneurship in the Norwegian corporation. The findings show some deviations from initial propositions.

National culture domains, in this case are represented by uncertainty avoidance, do not always manifest within the Norwegian corporation. Furthermore, well managing society with high level of uncertainty avoidance can still make the society well performing in

intrapreneurship.

Acknowledgment

I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor Professor WSR Steffen Korsgaard for his valuable guidance and knowledge sharing during performance of this research. My gratitude would I also like to express to PhD candidate Daniel Leunbach.

I would like to acknowledge the valuable cooperation during our data collection to DNV GL and Schibsted ASA. Not forgetting culture expert Pellegrino Riccardi for intercultural discussion.

A deep gratitude to Associate Professor Jens Petter Falck as MSc Program Coordinator and Professor Truls Erikson as Master thesis coordinator for their guidance and effort in making this project happen.

Finally, I would like to thank my colleagues and family for their support during this master thesis project.

Table of Content

1. Introduction ... 1

1.1. Background ... 1

1.2. Motivation ... 2

1.3. Objective ... 3

1.4. Research Question ... 3

1.5. Outline of the Thesis ... 3

2. Literature Review ... 4

2.1. Overview of Intrapreneurship Theory ... 4

2.2. Overview of Culture Theory ... 10

3. Propositions ... 13

3.1. Proposition 1: Norwegian Corporation Organization culture is Influenced by National Culture Values ... 14

3.2. Proposition 2: Manifestation of High-level Uncertainty Avoidance Negatively Influences Intrapreneurship in the Norwegian Corporation ... 15

3.3. Proposition 3: High Level Future Orientation Positively Influences the Intrapreneurship in the Norwegian Corporation. ... 15

4. Research Design and Methodology ... 16

4.1. Choice of the Methodology ... 16

4.2. Data Collection ... 21

4.3. Data analysis ... 24

4.4. Research design quality judgement ... 25

5. Findings and Analysis ... 26

5.1. DNV GL Case ... 27

5.2. Schibsted case ... 38

5.3. Comparing the Two Cases ... 44

6. Conclusion ... 51

6.1. Final Proposition ... 51

6.2. Suggestions for the Business Practice ... 52

6.3. Implication for Further Research ... 53

6.4. Reflection ... 53

References ... 54

Appendix: Interview Guide ... 59

List of figures

Figure 2. 1. Relationship between intrapreneurial behavior - personal resources - work engagement 5

Figure 2.2 Layer of mental programing (Hofstede,2012) ... 10

Figure 4.1 Intrapreneurial level among countries. (data retrieves from Stam and Stenkula, 2017). ... 18

Figure 5.1 DNV GL corporate governance structure (DNV GL, 2020b) ... 27

Figure 2. DNV GL operational /business area structure (DNV GL, 2020b) ... 28

Figure 5.3: Schibted’s Division (Schibsted, 2019) ... 38

List of tables

Table 4.2 List of interviewees ... 22

Table 4.3 Characteristic of uncertainty avoidance and Future Orientation (adopted from House et al (2004) and Grove (2005) ... 25

Table 4.4 Case study tactic for Four design tests (source: Yin, 2014) ... 26

Table 5.1 Coding result for DNV GL uncertainty avoidance and future orientation ... 29

Table 5.2 Key differences between low and high uncertainty avoidance at work (Riemer, 2007) ... 31

Table 5.3 The coding result for Schibsted case ... 39

Table 5.4 Uncertainty avoidance and future orientation and its manifestation om intrapreneurship for DNV GL and Schibsted ... 45

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

Scholars and practitioners have long agreed that intrapreneurship has a positive impact on company performance as well as employees (Felicio, Rodriguez, & Caldeirinha, 2012;

Gawke, Gorgievski, & Bakker, 2017). However, intrapreneurship application for large established organizations is challenging. Most of the literature on intrapreneurship focuses on why corporate entrepreneurship is strategically valuable and how the presence of corporate entrepreneurship programs is correlated with financial benefits to the organization. There is little or no guidance on how management and employees should implement intrapreneurship (Desouza, 2011).

Christensen (2005) included culture as a factor affecting intrapreneurship. Several studies also show culture has positive correlation with business performance (Kohlbacher, 2011;

Søderholm, 2012; Ireland et al, 2003; Tchaicha and Davis, 2005). Kohlbacher et al (2011) indicated that a corporate culture is positively associated with profitability, delivery speed and delivery reliability. However, one must differentiate between national culture and organizational culture.

Culture itself defines as collective programming of the mind that manifests itself in several ways that can be summarized into four concepts, i.e. symbols, heroes, rituals and values (Hosftede, 2012). Chapter 2 will discuss more detail about the theoretical explanation of national and organizational culture.

Christensen’s (2015) study which includes culture as a factor affecting intrapreneurship basically refers to organizational culture rather than National culture. Whilst, other study shows National culture significantly affects organization culture (Khan and Law, 2018).

Ando (2008) shows how national culture affects management style in a company.

Furthermore, in order to successfully conduct business in a country, a firm’s management and employees must understand, appreciate, and respect the unique aspects of that country’s culture (Tchaicha and Davis, 2005).

Practices which are appropriate in one cultural setting may violate the established

understanding of organizational and social life in another cultural context. This results in a

loss of legitimacy for the firm and in hostility toward or the rejection of the very management practices, which are presumed to harmonize and improve organizational life (Weaver, 2001).

Other studies found that work unit financial performance is higher when management practices in the work unit are congruent with the national culture (Newman and Nollen, 1996).

Among national culture domains, uncertainty avoidance and future orientation are the two domains that have the tendency to influence intrapreneurship in a corporation. However, the case study of the influence of this domain in the corporation is quite scarce.

1.2. Motivation

It was in the autumn semester 2019 when all of the master students at MSc Entrepreneurship program were assigned to an innovative Norwegian corporation. I was assigned to Schibsted, a company that have already established for more than 180 years ago. We found that this company has a very broad business area even though they started their business as a

publishing company. This means the company has done various intrapreneurial activities that made them survive and grow for more than 180 years.

Schibsted is not alone, there are several companies in Norway that survive and continuously grow for more than 100 years old, name it Norsk Hydro, DNVGL, Yara etc. These

companies continuously transform from their core business, create new business units or spin off new companies. This thesis includes DNV GL case as the object of the research. DNV GL has been established for more than 150 years. As a risk management company that targets business customers, the company is able to expand its market from their traditional customers, i.e., maritime industries into broader markets such as energy, health sector, business insurance and the latest one is digitalization.

The success story on how these companies expand and transform their businesses is related to intrapreneurial activity. However, study on how they manage intrapreneurial activity and its relationship with Norwegian culture, i.e. uncertainty avoidance and future orientation domain is quite limited. Entering the key word intrapreneurship and uncertainty avoidance to google scholar resulting in 540 publications. Adding Norway as the key word, Uncertainty avoidance and intrapreneurship has been discussed in 124 publications. The future orientation domain, despite its relevance with entrepreneurship, the publication on this research is also limited.

Entering the key word Future orientation and intrapreneurship shows only 198 publications.

Moreover, adding the word Norway in the search engine shows only 32 publications. This scarcity encourages me to explore further with a hope that it can contribute in providing suggestions on how Norwegian corporations should improve intrapreneurial activity based on my findings.

1.3. Objective

The objective of this research is to elaborate the influence of uncertainty avoidance and future orientation on intrapreneurial activity within Norwegian corporations. This research will also provide some suggestions on how management should deal with Norwegian culture to improve intrapreneurship activity within the organization.

1.4. Research Question

The research question for this thesis is “How do Uncertainty avoidance and Future Orientation influence intrapreneurship in Norwegian corporations?”. Do these Norwegian culture domains influence intrapreneurship or is it more organizational culture influencing intrapreneurial activities? Especially in large corporations which have multicultural

backgrounds, does Norwegian culture have an effect on them in developing intrapreneurial activities?

1.5. Outline of the Thesis

In order for it to be easily understood, the report is structured as follows: Chapter 1:

Introduction, defines the motivation or background of the research, the objective, research question as well as the structure of the report.

Chapter 2 provides literature review. The arguments basically draw on previous research or theoretical aspect of intrapreneurship definition (Desouza, 2011; Sharma,1999), the

importance of intrapreneurship (Desouza, 2011; Felicio et al, 2012; Gawke et al, 2017, Guth and Ginsberg, 1990; Lumpkin and Dess, 1996), the success factors of intrapreneurship (Desouza, 2011; Ireland, Hitt, & Sirmon, 2003; Sætre, 2001), and several practices of

intrapreneurship in corporations (Sharma, 1999: Sætre, 2001). Cultural aspects of Norwegian society in an organization based on several dimensions (Hofstede, 1991; Hofstede, 2012;

House, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004; Khan and Law, 2018; Søderholm, 2012) is also elaborated.

Chapter 3 provides initial propositions on how uncertainty avoidance and future orientation influence intrapreneurship. These initial propositions are developed based on theoretical arguments in intrapreneurship and relate it with Norwegian culture in an organization as mentioned in chapter 2. Chapter 4 describes research design and methodology. Chapter 5 provides the findings and discussion. Chapter 6: Conclusion, provide last proposition, suggestions for business practices and further research.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Overview of Intrapreneurship Theory

2.1.1. The importance of intrapreneurship

Many scholars have documented positive effects of intrapreneurship both for corporations and the employees. Felicio et al (2012) confirmed a strong positive correlation between intrapreneurship and corporate performance. Here, Felicio et al (2012) measured company performance as a function of growth which is indicated by the increase of market share, the increase of sales, financial performance, and internal performance, such as productivity.

Intrapreneurship is also important to increase employee engagement and productivity (Gawke et al, 2017). According to Gawke et al, employees’ intrapreneurship builds a positive change in employees' personal resources (i.e. optimism, resilience and self-efficacy) over time.

Moreover, the positive change of personal resources leads to higher and more stable work engagement (Gawke et al, 2017). The higher and more stable work engagement increases intrapreneurship activities. This is evidence of a cycle, i.e. intrapreneurial behavior - personal resources - work engagement, where each element has a positive correlation with the others.

Figure 2. 1. Relationship between intrapreneurial behavior - personal resources - work engagement Guth and Ginsberg (1990) and Lumpkin and Dess (1996) verified the ability of corporate entrepreneurship to improve competitive positioning and transform corporations, their markets, and industries. They argued that through corporate entrepreneurship, opportunities for value-creating innovation are developed and exploited. Moreover, Sætre (2011) showed the impact of intrapreneurship on providing great revenues among Norwegian companies.

2.1.2. Definition of intrapreneurship

Entrepreneurial activities within existing organizations have been attracting attention from scholars during the past thirty years (Sharma, 1999). Scholars and business practitioners have diverse terms and definitions in describing this activity. The terms such as intrapreneurship, corporate venturing, innovation, internal entrepreneurship, corporate entrepreneurship, etc.

were used to define such activity.

However, there is no consistency on the use of those terminologies, which then creates confusion. In his paper, Sharma (1999) provided criteria for classifying and understanding of the activities associated with corporate venturing. Following Sharma suggestion, this review uses Guth and Ginsberg (1990) definition in corporate entrepreneurship, i.e. an activity that comprises between corporate venturing, strategic renewal and innovation.

Intrapreneurial behavior

Personal resources Work

engagement

2.1.3. Several practices of intrapreneurship in corporation

Intrapreneurship process consists of several steps. It starts from idea generation, followed by idea advocacy, experimentation, commercialization, diffusion and implementation of ideas (Desouza, 2011). It covers three main activities, i.e. innovation, establishing a new

organization, and strategic renewal (Sharma, 1999).

As per Sharma definition, strategic renewal refers to the corporate entrepreneurial efforts that result in significant changes to an organization's business or corporate level strategy or structure. Corporate venturing itself refers to corporate entrepreneurial efforts that lead to the creation of new business organizations within the corporate organization (Sharma, 1999).

Sharma classified two methods in establishing new organization, i.e. internal corporate venturing such as new business unit, and external corporate venturing for example joint venture, spin-off, venture capital initiatives. The result of these activities can be a new organization or new products or services (Sharma, 1999).

2.1.4. Success factor of intrapreneurship

Hornsby, Kuratko and Zahra (2002) defined five factors that influence the successful intrapreneurial activities in a corporation. These factors are based on how the companys’

internal environment influences middle managers’ initiative to perform corporate

entrepreneurship activities (aka. intrapreneurship), i.e. (a) management support, (b) resource availability, (c) organizational structure, (d) risk-taking and tolerance for failure, and (e) reward. In addition, a qualitative study of Danfoss Drives, a Danish engineering company, proposed three additional factors, i.e. (f) communication, (g) culture, and (h) process (Christensen, 2005). However, this literature review does not elaborate factors (f) and (h) since they are already covered by factor no (g). The more detailed explanation of these factors will be discussed in the next following sections (section 2.1.4.1 – section 2.1.4.5).

2.1.4.1. Support from management

Both top management and middle management play an essential role in intrapreneurship (Burgerman, 1983; Hornsby, Kuratko & Zahra,2002; Desouza, 2011; Narayanan, 2008;

Christensen, 2005). Burgelman (1983) found top managements’ critical contribution in corporate entrepreneurship. He suggested top management participation in strategic

recognition rather than planning. This strategy will allow middle level managers to redefine

the strategic context, so that they can become fast learners. Burgelman also suggested strategic management at the top should be concerned with the balance of the emphasis on diversity and the order over time. Top management should control the level and the rate of change rather than the specific content of entrepreneurial activity. Finally, new managerial approaches and innovative administrative arrangements are required to facilitate the collaboration between entrepreneurial participants and the organizations in which they are active (Burgelman, 1983).

Narayanan et al (2008) showed intrapreneurship has some implications in management practice. They suggested that managers need to have a portfolio of the intrapreneurial activities which they can choose to stimulate innovation, expand the firm’s operation and achieve growth. In order to decide on which intrapreneurial activity should be pursued, the managers should consider the external environment of the firm and competitive strategy (Keil in Narayanan et al, 2008). Furthermore, Narayanan et al suggested managers to balance between short term and long term needs as well as operational and strategic priorities.

Conflicting forces may appear during intrapreneurial activity. This can affect the company's organizational structure. Managers need to resolve this conflict by giving new unit autonomy and direction to grow as well as keeping them connected to the rest of the organization in order to capture new knowledge and skills they develop (Nayaranan et al, 2008). Nayanan et al suggested managers to implement strategic control, by understanding business setting and having clear performance parameters, that gives the manager of the new unit freedom to experiment, explore and learn.

2.1.4.2. Availability of resources

Ireland et al (2003) formulated three critical resources for engaging in Strategic

Entrepreneurship. These resources consist of one tangible asset, i.e. financial capital and two intangible assets, i.e. human capital and social capital. Financial capital includes all the different monetary resources, which can be used to develop and implement strategies. Firms with strong financial resources have the slack required to identify and subsequently exploit entrepreneurial opportunities (Ireland et at, 2003).

Human capital is critical to organizational success (Hitt et al, 2001; Pfeffer, 1994). It is defined as the knowledge and skills of the firm’s entire workforce (Covin & Slevin, 2002).

More comprehensively, human capital has been defined as the “individual capabilities, knowledge, skill, and experience of the company’s employees and managers, as they are relevant to the task at hand, as well as the capacity to add to this reservoir of knowledge, skills, and experience through individual learning” (Dess & Lumpkin, 2001)

Social capital is the set of relationships between individuals (internal social capital) and between individuals and organizations (external social capital) that facilitate action (Hitt et al., 2002). Collectively, social capital is the total set of value-creating resources that accrues to the firm because of its durable network of intra- and inter-firm relationships (Ireland, Hitt

& Vaidyanath, 2002; Koka & Prescott, 2002). This social capital is resulted from

relationships inside the firm and with external entities. Social capital helps the firm to gain access to and control of resources and to absorb knowledge (Dess & Lumpkin, 2001).

2.1.4.3. Organizational structure

Organizational structure can both inhibit or drive successful intrapreneurship (Aparicio, 2017). In order to support intrapreneurship, the structure must foster the administrative mechanisms by which ideas are evaluated, chosen, and implemented. Structural boundaries tend to be a major stumbling block for middle management in corporate entrepreneurial activity (Hornsby et al, 2002). Furthermore, Hornsby et al (2002) suggested Managers use different approaches to make the organizational structure less resistant to change, thereby allowing corporate entrepreneurial activities to flourish.

2.1.4.4. Risk-taking and tolerance for failure

Intrapreneurial activities always deal with uncertainty and risk. Hence, risk-taking attitude defines the success of intrapreneurship. Risk taking dimension indicates managers'

willingness to take risks and shows a tolerance for failure when it occurs (Hornsby et al, 2002). Hence, Hornsby et al suggested managers to perceive a work environment that

encourages risk taking calculation while maintaining reasonable tolerance for failure. In order to do that, managers should interact with diverse employees, which would allow them to use formal and informal approaches to encourage innovation and calculated risk taking (Hornsby et al, 2002).

2.1.4.5. Reward Systems

Incentivizing or giving rewards to the employee is one known method for supporting intrapreneurial activity (Aparicio, 2017; Desouza, 2011; Parrish, 2014). The availability of rewards will encourage employees to innovate and take risks (Hornsby et al, 2002). Rewards allow employees to experiment with, and explore the feasibility of innovative ideas. It will also create the social capital and trust needed to foster the corporate entrepreneurial process (Hornsby et al, 2002).

Talking about incentives, we need to consider what employees’ value most. Hence, understanding employee behavior is essential. The use of appropriate rewards can also enhance middle managers' willingness to assume the risks associated with entrepreneurial activity (Hornsby et al, 2002).

Systematic Inventive Thinking (2013) listed several issues to consider in incentivising idea, i.e. rewards worthy, type of incentives, time to give rewards, who does the company want to incentivises, and who decides to give incentive. Other issues recalled by Hornsby et al (2002), i.e. goals, feedback, emphasis on individual responsibility, and results-based incentives. ‘

If we look deeper, the success factors, suggested by Hornsby et al (2002) above, cover only factors from the internal organization. All of these factors depend most likely on the management and the board decisions. How does the management policies support the

intrapreneurship, does management provide enough resources to support intrapreneurship etc.

In my opinion, there are also external factors that could contribute to the success of

intrapreneurship. For example, the government policies, as well as national culture and so on.

That can, for example, explain why some countries can be more innovative as compared to the other countries (Bosma, Hill, Somers, Kelley, Levie, & Tarnawa, 2019).

The relationship between intrapreneurship and national culture has been discussed by many scholars (Raugh, Frese, Wang, Unger, Lozada, Kupcha & Spirina, 2015). In order to gain more understanding on how culture influences intrapreneurship, we will discuss some

theoretical perspectives of national culture and some cultural domains covered in the national culture in the next section.

2.2. Overview of Culture Theory

Hofstede (2012) defines culture as “the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from others”. The group itself could be a nation, a company, gender etc. Hofstede (2012) describes these concepts as onion layers that show in figure 2.

Figure 2.2 Layer of mental programing (Hofstede,2012)

Here we see values as the core, symbols are the most superficial layer, with heroes and rituals in between (figure 2).

Symbols are words, gestures, pictures or objects which carry a particular meaning, only recognized as such by those who share the culture. Example of symbol, i.e. the words in a language or jargon, dress or hair style etc. (Hofstede, 2012)

Heroes represent people, alive or deceased, real or imaginary, who possess characteristics that are highly prized in a culture, and thus serve as models for behavior. Founders of companies often become cultural heroes in organization context (Hofstede, 2012).

Rituals refer to collective activities that are performed excessively to reach the community desire. These activities are considered socially essential and are carried out for their own sake. Religious ceremonies, ways of greeting and paying respect to others as well as business or political meeting are all different examples of rituals (Hofstede, 2012).

Symbols, heroes and rituals can together be labeled “practices”. As such, they are visible to an outside observer; their cultural meaning, however, is not necessarily visible and lies in the way these practices are interpreted by the insiders. (Hofstede, 2012)

The core of culture is formed by values. Values are strong emotions with an arrow to it: a minus and a plus pole, such as evil versus good, abnormal versus normal, ugly versus beautiful, dangerous versus safe, immoral versus moral, indecent versus decent, unnatural versus natural, dirty versus clean, paradoxical versus logical, irrational versus rational.

(Hofstede, 2012)

Values are among the first things children learn—not consciously, but implicitly. Because they were acquired so early in our lives, many values remain unconscious to those who hold them. (Hofstede, 2012)

National culture deals with the values people in a country agree with. The mental model of national culture is developed unconsciously during childhood and it is unchangeable (Hofstede, 2012). On the other hand, organization culture differs mostly at the level of superficial practices such as symbols, heroes and rituals. It is developed in a more conscious way and can be changed by the management (Hofstede, 2012).

As mentioned in chapter 1, several studies found organizational culture has significantly affected intrapreneurship. This organization culture itself is affected by many factors.

However, national culture itself has the ability to shape corporate culture in many ways such as leadership styles, human resources management practices, managerial decision-making etc. (Khan and Law, 2018).

2.2.1. An Overview of Norwegian culture

Søderholm (2012) confirmed the value of Norwegian culture in business practices in Norwegian companies. He argued that financial issues, marketing, as well as innovation, which are concerned by managers, are affected by cultural values and practices.

This report recalls several dimensions in National culture provided by Hofstede (1991) and Project GLOBE (Søderholm, 2012). The dimensions are: Uncertainty Avoidance,

Assertiveness; Individualism-Collectivism, Power Distance, Performance Orientation, Future

Orientation, Gender Egalitarianism and Humane Orientation (Hofstede, 1991; House et al, 2004; Søderholm, 2012).

Uncertainty Avoidance is the extent to which members of an organization or society strive to avoid uncertainty by relying on established social norms, rituals, and bureaucratic

practices. People in high Uncertainty Avoidance culture actively seek to decrease the probability of unpredictable future events that could adversely affect the operation of an organization or society, and remedy the success of such adverse effects (House et al, 2004).

Norway scores moderately high uncertainty avoidance (Søderholm, 2012).

Assertiveness. The concept of Assertiveness originates in part from Hofstede’s cultural dimension of masculinity versus femininity (House et al, 2004). In masculine societies, men are supposed to be assertive and tough and women are expected to be modest and tender (House et al, 2004). Norway scores low in Masculinity, which means that they value modesty, tenderness, cooperation and warm relations. They emphasize the importance of

“face-saving”, ambiguity and subtlety in communication. They are also concerned that “merit pay” can be destructive to harmony (Søderholm, 2012).

Individualism-Collectivism. Individualism is based on the super ordination of personal over group goals, while collectivism is the emphasis of group over personal goals through the derivation of firm and explicit group boundaries (Rebecca, 1997). Project GLOBE divided this dimension into two constructs (House et al, 2004): Institutional Collectivism and In- Group Collectivism. Institutional Collectivism is the degree to which organizational and societal institutional practices encourage and reward collective distribution of resources and collective action (House et al, 2004). In-Group Collectivism is defined as the degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and cohesiveness in their organization or families (House et al, 2004). Norway scores high in collectivism. That means that individuals are integrated into a strong cohesive group (Søderholm, 2012).

Power distance is defined as the degree to which members of an organization or society expect and agree that power should be stratified and concentrated at higher levels of an organization (House et al, 2004). Norway is known for low in power distance (Søderholm, 2012). In a low Power Distance culture, subordinates and superiors consider each other as essentially equal. Such low Power Distance values in Scandinavia are manifested in certain aspects of Norwegian business practices such as little use of formal titles, dress codes, and

attitudes to practical tasks in the workplace. Another element of Power Distance, the roles and hierarchy within a society, is mirrored in the egalitarian practices at work (Søderholm, 2012).

Performance orientation is defined as the degree to which an organization or society encourages and rewards group members for performance improvement and excellence (House et al, 2004). Norway categories moderately high in Performance Orientation (Søderholm, 2012).

Gender Egalitarianism is defined as the degree to which an organization or society minimizes gender role differences while promoting gender equality (Søderholm, 2012).

Norway scores high in Gender Egalitarianism as confirmed by Søderholm (2012).

Community with high level of this dimension tends to promote equal opportunities for all people in the society (House et al, 2004:359)

Humane Orientation refers to values in which society help each other. Values of altruism, benevolence, kindness, love, and generosity are salient motivating factors guiding people’s behavior in societies characterized by a strong Humane Orientation (Triandis, 1995). Norway scores high in human orientation (Søderholm, 2012)

Future Orientation is the degree to which individuals in organizations or societies engage in future-oriented behaviors such as planning, investing in the future, and delaying individual or collective gratification (House et al, 2004). Norway scores high in Future Orientation

(Søderholm, 2012).

3. Propositions

In order to give the right direction of the research, I formulate several propositions. These propositions are based on theoretical background described in the previous section. (Yin, 2014)

3.1. Proposition 1: Norwegian Corporation

Organization culture is Influenced by National Culture Values

The relationship between national culture and its influence on organization culture has been widely studied. Entering the key word “national culture and organizational culture” resulted in more than five million articles. Most of them argued that national culture has significant influence on shaping organizational culture (Schneider, 1989; Newman and Nollen, 1996;

Jaeger, 1986). The emphasis on the central role of national culture has continued in recent years. For example, the most recent large-scale project, GLOBE (House et al, 2004),

emphasizes that the relationship between national culture and organizational culture is strong with organizations mirroring the countries where they are found.

There are several ways on how national culture influences the organization culture. A company that has employees the way they are working is shaped by their national culture.

The behavior of the employees will influence the organization culture (Buchanan and Huczynski, 2004). Another way explained by House et al. (1999), is that national culture shapes the style of leadership and the way leaders’ function. Hence, leaders are the main actors in establishing the culture of the organization, who influence the organizational culture on a continual basis (Robbins, 2003)

However, I also found a rival argument by Barry Gerhart (2009). Gerhart performed quantitative analysis that measured the relationship between organizational culture and national culture. The organization he used here is the country in the US. He found that most of the variance in organizational cultures is not explained by country; of the variance that is explained by country, only a minority is due to national culture differences. National culture is meaningfully related to organizational culture, but not as strongly as has often been claimed and, arguably, not strongly enough for national culture to be a major constraint on organizational culture.

3.2. Proposition 2: Manifestation of High-level Uncertainty Avoidance Negatively Influences Intrapreneurship in the Norwegian Corporation

Norway scores moderate to high uncertainty avoidance (Søderholm, 2012). This means Norwegian societies tend to be risk averse. Studies found uncertainty avoidance negatively influence entrepreneurial behavior including corporate entrepreneurship (Kalajdzic, Cerne, &

Maglajlic, 2019; Kreiser, Marino, Dickson, &Weaver, 2010; McGrath, MacMillan, &

Scheinberg, 1992; Wang, 2012). However, there could be a rival argument that if the company can manage well on this issue, they could also positively influence the intrapreneurial activity within the organization.

A community with high uncertainty avoidance tends to show a stronger desire to establish rules, agendas, and routines and have less tolerance for the breaking of rules (House et at, 2004: 618). These rules are important in order to provide them a safe environment. This rule might cover working hours, reward systems, success or failure management, career path design for intrapreneurs, etc.

A safe environment for employees to pursue ideas is also crucial. Companies that can provide a safe environment will be able to encourage intrapreneurial activities among the employees with high uncertainty avoidance. This strategy can be started from idea generation itself, experimentation with their ideas, commercialization as well as implementation of the ideas.

In order to achieve this safe environment for intrapreneurial activities, organizations should develop organizational cultures with high trust and psychological safety, high justice and fairness, and high error and failure tolerance (Yeong Ng, 2012).

3.3. Proposition 3: High Level Future Orientation Positively Influences the Intrapreneurship in the Norwegian Corporation.

Norway scores high in future orientation (Søderholm, 2012). Future orientation itself is a domain proposed by project GLOBE. Unlike uncertainty avoidance, this domain has very little publication in the context or its relationship with intrapreneurship. However, since this domain measures the degree to which individuals in an organization engage in future-oriented

behavior -including investing for the future - we can assume that the higher degree of future orientation, the higher an organization supports intrapreneurial activity.

Alf Steinar Sætre (2001) researched intrapreneurial practices in 55 companies in Norway. He found that Norwegian Industries have mixed experiences with their efforts at stimulating innovation and intrapreneurship. Organizations seek to stimulate innovation outside R&D units and allocate more funding in the earlier project stages. This effort accelerates project development and they manage to generate great revenues from new product/service. Sætre’s founding can be interpreted as a lower level of Norwegian company willingness to invest for the future. This could be the rival argument for the proposition and it is interesting to

elaborate more on these cases.

4. Research Design and Methodology

4.1. Choice of the Methodology

In order to get a qualified result, the research should be properly designed. The choice of methodology follows a suggestion from Yin (2014). According to Yin (2014) there are three conditions we need to consider when choosing research method, i.e. (a) the type of research question posed (b) the extent of control a researcher has over actual behavioral events and (c) the degree of focus on contemporary or historical events.

Table 4.1 describes five different research methods related to the three conditions Table 4.1. Different research methodologies based on Yin’s three conditions (Yin, 2014) Method Form of research

question Requirement control

of behavioral events Focuses on

contemporary Events?

Experiment How, why yes Yes

Survey Who, what, where, how many, how much

No Yes

Archival Analysis

Who, what, where, how many, how much

No Yes/no

History How, why no no

Case Study How, why no Yes

Since I used “how” type as the research question, it does not need control on behavioral events. It focuses on contemporary events rather than historical, the best most suitable

method for this research is a case study. In addition, choosing the case the research method is also based on Yin in Baxter and Jack (2008) suggestion, i.e. since it cannot manipulate the behavior of those involved in the study, I want to cover contextual conditions because I believe they are relevant to the phenomenon under study, or the boundaries are not clear between the phenomenon and context.

There are five important components in conducting case study research, i.e.: a case study questions, proposition, unit of analysis, the logic thinking the data to the proposition, and the criteria for interpreting the finding (Yin;2014). In the next section, I will describe how this research implements these five components.

4.1.1. Study the questions

As mentioned previously, case study research is most appropriate for “how” and “why”

questions. However, to define what “how” or “why” question appropriate to the objective of the research is quite challenging. Yin (2014) proposes three stages in developing the research question. The first stage is to use the literature to narrow the interest to one or two key topics.

Second stage involving examination of a few key studies on the topic of interest. The last stage is to examine another set of studies on the same topic. These stages will reinforce the relevance and importance of potential questions or sharpening them (Yin, 2014).

In the beginning of the research, I intend to study the influence of culture on intrapreneurship in the Norwegian corporation. Here, I come at the first stage, i.e. gathering literatures related to intrapreneurship and culture. This literature review covers what factors influence the success of intrapreneurship as well as elaborates important aspects or values in the national cultures. From this first step, I realized that the national culture domain is very broad. The duration of master thesis research which is only 17 weeks will not be enough to cover all of the cultural domains. Then I come to the second stage – narrowing the interest to one or two key topics.

Among cultural domains, Uncertainty Avoidance has been discussed by scholars related to its influence on intrapreneurship. Entering the key word intrapreneurship and uncertainty

avoidance to google scholar resulting in 540 publications. Adding Norway as the key word, Uncertainty avoidance and intrapreneurship has been discussed in 124 publications.

Entrepreneurship itself will always involve uncertainty where entrepreneurs should be able to

manage it. Revisiting the literature review, Norway is one of the countries that possess moderate to high levels of Uncertainty Avoidance. Therefore, it is very interesting to elaborate the influence of this domain to the intrapreneurial activities of Norwegian corporations.

Another domain that I think is important for supporting intrapreneurship is Future

Orientation. Revisits the literature review, Future Orientation measures the degree to which individuals in organizations or societies engage in future-oriented behaviors such as planning, investing in the future, and delaying individual or collective gratification (House et al, 2004).

Countries with a high level of Future Orientation are supposed to have high intrapreneurship level. Figure 4.1 shows the intrapreneurship level among countries measures by its EEA (Entrepreneurial employee Activity), ILR (Intrapreneurs with a leading role) and IP3 (Intrapreneurs supportive or leader for 3 years) (Stam and Stenkula, 2017). Norway scores above average on these measures. However, it is still below the neighbor countries, i.e.

Denmark, Sweden and Finland. Entering the word Future Orientation and intrapreneurship shows only 198 publications. Moreover, adding the word Norway in the search engine shows only 32 publications. This shows not so much research in this topic despite its relevance.

Therefore, how do these two culture domains influence intrapreneurship becomes a more interesting topic for me to elaborate.

Figure 4.1 Intrapreneurial level among countries. (data retrieves from Stam and Stenkula, 2017).

The last stage is to examine another set of studies on the same topic. The relationship between both cultural domains (Uncertainty avoidance and Future Orientation) and

entrepreneurship has been studied (Kalajdzic et al, 2019; Kenney and Mujtaba, 2007; Kreiser et al, 2010; Sinha, 2015;Yildiz, 2014). Kreiser et al (2010) for example, studied the impact of national culture on risk taking and proactiveness in SMEs in eight different countries where Norway is one of them. Yildiz (2014) studied the effect of all five Hofstede cultural domains on corporate entrepreneurship in Turkey. However, the study on how these domains influence Intrapreneurship in Norwegian corporations is hard to find. Therefore, I am interested to elaborate more.

4.1.2. Study the proposition

Study the proposition is the second component of the case study research design. Each proposition directs attention to something that should be examined within the scope of study (Yin, 2014). While studying the “how” and “why” questions is to capture what we are really interested in addressing, these questions do not sufficiently point to what we should study (Yin, 2014). Yin (2014) argued that only by stating some theoretical propositions, we will move into the right direction of the research. The proposition reflects an important theoretical issue as well as tells us where we should look for relevant evidence.

The detail propositions in this master thesis research is described in section 3.

4.1.3. Unit of analysis

Unit of analysis is related to the fundamental problem of defining the “case” to be studied (Yin, 2014). In defining the unit of analysis, we should consider two steps, i.e. defining the case and bounding the case.

In defining the case, Yin (2014) suggests to study the questions and study the propositions to help identify the relevant information to be collected about the object or sample of the research. This is because without studying the question and the propositions will lead to misleading in covering other issues which may not be relevant to the research. The more specific questions and propositions, the more the research stays within feasible limits (Yin, 2014).

The next step in defining the unit of analysis is bounding the case. In this step we need to distinguish the object or the sample to be included in the research and which one should be excluded (Yin, 2014). Bounding the case will help us to determine the scope of the data collection and how we will distinguish data about the subject of the case study from data external to the case.

Revisits the research question, i.e. “How do Uncertainty avoidance and Future Orientation influence intrapreneurship in Norwegian corporations?” The case in this research is Norwegian corporations. In order to bound the case, I develop several criteria for the Norwegian corporation that will be included in this research, i.e. (1) The case should be multiple-case for single unit of analysis (2) Norwegian large corporation (3) The companies have long history of intrapreneurship or innovation (4) The companies has already establish their business in other countries.

Baxter and Jack (2008) describes five types of research studies he gathered from previous research (Yin, 2003 and Stake 1995). These types of case studies are explanatory research, exploratory research, Multiple case-studies, Intrinsic case studies, instrumental and collective case studies. This master thesis is a multiple case-study. Here we have two cases, i.e. for DNV GL and Schibsted. I believe these two companies are excellent cases for what I want to study. These companies have a long history of intrapreneurship for more than 150 years.

They also represent two different market types, DNV GL has a B2B market, whilst Schibsted has both B2B and B2C. For each case I have substantial evidence. Having these two cases allows me to do comparison and works on external validity on what I am doing by getting enough literal replication.

4.1.4. The logic thinking

The logic thinking involves linking data to the propositions or the analysis steps of the case study (Yin, 2014). Yin (2014) described four general strategies in analysis, i.e. relying on theoretical propositions, working the data “ground up”, developing a case description and examining plausible rival explanations. In addition to these strategies, Yin also provides five techniques for analysis, i.e. pattern matching, explanation building, time-series analysis, logic models and cross-case synthesis. Furthermore, Yin (2014) notes that the actual analyses will

require us to combine or assemble the case study data as a dir3ect reflection of the initial study proposition.

Since in this research I formulated some initial propositions, it is important that during the analysis phase to return back to the propositions (Yin, 20014). There are several reasons for this, i.e : (1) this practice leads to a focused analysis when the temptation is to analyze data that are outside the scope of the research questions, (2) exploring rival propositions is an attempt to provide an alternate explanation of a phenomenon (3) by engaging in this iterative process the confidence in the findings is increased as the number of propositions and rival propositions are addressed and accepted or rejected (Baxter and Jack, 2008).

When doing case studies, there is a major and important alternative strategy, i.e. to identify and address rival explanations for the findings. The more rivals that have been addressed and rejected, the stronger the finding (Yin, 2014). Detailed explanation of data analysis that is used in this research will be discussed in section 4.3.

4.1.5. Criteria for interpreting a case study’s findings

The fifth component in a case study is criteria for interpreting a case study’s findings (Yin, 2014). For quantitative study, we usually used a statistical analysis. When doing case studies, there is a major and important alternative strategy, i.e. to identify and address rival

explanations for the findings. The more rivals that have been addressed and rejected, the stronger the finding (Yin, 2014). Detailed explanation of data analysis used in this research will be discussed in section 4.3.

4.2. Data Collection

4.2.1. Data collection method

There are two types of data source, i.e. primary data and secondary data. This research follows Yin’s principles in data collection by using multiple sources of evidence i.e. from interview, documentation and archival records. Section 4.2.2.1 and 4.2.2.2 elaborates the detail method of data collection used in this research.

4.2.1.1. Primary data collection

This research used semi-structured interviews and participant observation for primary data collection. Interviews are useful since the research objective is to understand experience, opinion, attitudes, values, and processes ((Rowley, 2012). Interview also provides more details and insights since the potential interviewees might be more receptive on interview than other data gathering approaches (Rowley, 2012).

Among three types of interview, semi-structured interview is the most common use (Rowley, 2012). According to Rowley (2012), semi-structured interviews take on a variety of different forms, with varying numbers of questions, and varying degree of adaptation of questions and questions in order to accommodate the interviewees. As for the number of questions, six to 12 well-chosen and well-phrased questions are most suitable for the novice researcher (Rowley. 2012)).

Prior to the interview, the interview guide was developed (see appendix A). The interview guide consists of a set of questions that the researcher is going to ask to the interviewees. The questions were designed to generate data that is intended to answer the research question.

Some of the questions need to be adapted during the interviews to encourage interviewees to talk around the topic (Rowley, 2012). These questions were sent to interviewees prior the interview date so that they could have a better understanding of the research topic.

A total of ten interviews were conducted for my case study, two interviews were conducted face-to-face in Oslo, while due to Corona issue, the rest of the interviews were conducted online through the company’s platforms, Skype and Microsoft Teams. The duration of the interviews varied from 30 minutes to one hour. This is following a good rule of thumb that new researchers should aim for six to 12 interviews with approximately 30 minutes to one hour (Rowley, 2012). Table 4.2 shows the list of interviewees.

Table 4.2 List of interviewees

Name of

interviewee Position Company Date of

interview

Pellegrino Riccardi Culture expert 03 March 2020

Confidential Director of Innovation Confidential Pilot interview- 06 March 2020 Klas Bendrik Chief of Digital Transformation

Office DNVGL 19 March 2020

John Kristian

Norheim Lindøe Communication Manager DNVGL 20 March 2020 Per Myrseth Head of Department Data

Service. Data Management and Analytics

DNVGL 24 March 2020

Jon Eivind Board of Director, Head of Group IT Office,

DNVGL 27 March 2020 Stephan Winter Director of Analytics Schibsted 30 March 2020 Simon Ratcliffe Business Transformation

Manager DNVGL 3 April 2020

Confidential Director of Logistic Technology Daughter company Schibsted

17 March 2020

Confidential Employee DNVGL 18 April 2020

Participant observation was done once. A webinar host by Oslo Business Forum whose CEO of Schibsted was the keynote speaker. The webinar topic was “Leadership in changing time”

which discussed how the leader manages uncertainty due to COVID-19 issues. Therefore, participation in this webinar is relevant.

4.2.1.2. Ethics

Prior to the interview, the interviewees were informed that the data collected will be treated following GDPR. Permissions to record were also secured. However, to protect the

confidentiality of the information that were provided during the interview, the full

transcription will not be included in this thesis report. The interviewees were informed that the interviews will be transcribed, analyzed and some of the conversations would be quoted in its original form. The interviewees were also given the discretion to not answer the questions if they were deemed to be too sensitive.

4.2.1.3. Secondary data collection

Due to COVID-19 issue, it is also difficult to get more interviews, especially for the

Schibsted case. In order to balance the data with the DNV case, I used archival records from the previous semester. The records are interview transcripts related to the company's

corporate venturing. Hence, I think this will be relevant for this case as well. Prior to using these records, the individuals have been asked their concern.

In order to have a better understanding of intrapreneurial activity in the companies, I also spent a considerable amount of time gleaning through the company websites, annual report as

well as news about the companies. One company is also very generous to share their document of their innovation framework. In addition, I also followed the social media

channels of the companies, to get the latest news and announcements on them. I also attended a webinar arranged by Schibsted as participant observation to get another source of evidence.

The other sources of evidence listed under (Yin, 2014) such as direct observation, physical artifacts, etc., are not relevant and were not considered for this case study.

4.3. Data analysis

Cresswell (2007) notes that data analyses in qualitative study is not off-the shelf and should be done iteratively. There is no universal recipe for success, which means that data analysis can be a confusing and daunting process. Nevertheless, to get started, Rowley (2012) notes general agreement that there are a number of key components of data analysis. These components can be divided into two final components (Rowley, 2012)

First component includes organizing the data set, getting acquainted with the data,

classifying, coding and interpreting data. Second component includes presenting and writing up the data.

In order to get acquainted with the data, I listened to the recording as soon as the interview has been conducted. Important notes were also made. The recordings were also transcribed as soon as possible so that the memory is still fresh. The transcriptions were classified, coded and furthermore interpreted. The analysis is conducted by review back into propositions.

According to Yin, there are five techniques of analytic, i.e. pattern matching, explanation building, time series analysis, logic models, and cross case synthesis (Yin, 2014). Since this research provides initial propositions prior to the analysis, I consider pattern matching as an appropriate technique for the analysis. Pattern matching technique compares the findings with a predicted result that we made before we collected the data (Yin, 2014) or we called it as propositions. If the empirical and predicted patterns appear to be similar, the results can help this case study to strengthen the internal validity (yin, 2014). However, in this research I also consider to use rival independent as a pattern, a rival explanation as mentioned in section 3.

This rival explanation can provide pattern matching for independent variables (Yin, 2014).

Other methods similar to pattern matching, i.e. explanation building, is also a relevant analysis technique. However, in explanation building, an iterative process of making initial

explanatory proposition-comparing findings-revising the proposition statement should be conducted (Yin, 2014). This is not the case for this research.

In order to perform a proper analysis, I follow suggestions by Rowley (2012) and Yin (2014) using coding, interpretation, and the analysis should refer back to the initial propositions. The coding is designed to identify some characteristics of cultural value that match the previous theory. In this case, such characteristics are set as nodes. The characteristics follow House et al (2004) and GLOBE research findings (Grove, 2005) criteria. Table 4.3 shows the

characteristics of uncertainty avoidance and Future Orientation that are used as nodes.

Table 4.3 Characteristic of uncertainty avoidance and Future Orientation (adopted from House et al (2004) and Grove (2005)

Culture domain Low level High level

Uncertainty

avoidance Less orderly More orderly

Less calculate risk and high risk taking

Carefully calculate risk and Moderate risk taking

Less rules, agendas or routines Strong desire on rules, agendas, routines establishment

Future orientation Instant reward Delaying reward or gratification Short strategic orientation Long strategic orientation

Intrapreneurial activities is identified based on three intrapreneurial activity suggest by Sharma et al, (1999) as mentioned in section 2.1.3, i.e. Innovation, establishing new organization and strategic renewal. These activities are also included in the coding process.

4.4. Research design quality judgement

In order to assure the quality of the research, it is important to test the research design

according to logical tests (Yin, 2014). Yin (2014) proposed to use Four tests used by the U. S.

Government Office, i.e.: construct validity, internal validity, external validity and reliability.

A brief description of this tests as follows (Yin, 2014):

Construct validity identifying correct operational measures for the concepts being studied (Yin, 2014). Internal validity seeking to establish causal relationships, where some conditions are believed to lead to other conditions. This test is used to test the quality in explanatory or causal studies and not for descriptive or exploratory studies. External validity defines the domain to which the study’s findings can be generalized. Reliability demonstrating that the

operations of a study can be repeated with the same results. Some tactics for each test are briefly summarized in table 4.4.

Table 4.4 Case study tactic for Four design tests (source: Yin, 2014)

Test Tactic (Yin, 2014) Tactic used in this thesis research Construct

validity

 Use multiple source of evidence

 Establish chain of evidence

 Have key informants review drafts case study report

Multiple interviewees for each case The Draft of the report is reviewed by supervisor

Internal validity

 Do pattern matching

 Do explanation building

 Address rival explanation

 Use logic model

Pattern matching with the initial proposition as well as address the rival proposition.

External validity

 Use theory in single-case study

 Use replication logic in multiple-case studies

Multiple-case studies for single unit of analysis.

Interviewees subjects is selected so that possible to provide literal or theoretical replications

Reliability  Use case study protocol

 Develop a case study database

Develop database of the transcriptions

5. Findings and Analysis

This section provides my findings for both cases and analysis based on pattern matching methodology. The findings for each case are represented in section 5.1 (for DNV GL case) and 5.2 (for Schibsted case). Each section starts with giving a brief overview of the

companies so that we can understand how the company is structured in relationship with its intrapreneurial activities. These sections also provide any evidence on manifestation of uncertainty avoidance and Future Orientation within the companies as well as how these cultural domains influence intrapreneurial activities in the corporations.

Section 5.3 compares the two cases and reflects it back to the initial propositions. In this section, each proposition will be evaluated based on evidence that is founded and presented in section 5.1 and 5.2.

5.1. DNV GL Case

5.1.1. Overview of the company

DNV GL was founded in 1864 as DNV to accommodate the need of marine insurance clubs to establish a uniform set of rules and procedures that was used for assessing the risk of underwriting individual vessels (DNV GL, 2020a). In 2013 DNV merged with another classification society based in Germany, i.e. GL and changed its name into DNV GL.

DNV GL Group is owned by Det Norske Veritas Holding AS, a fully owned subsidiary of Stiftelsen Det Norske Veritas. Stiftelsen Det Norske Veritas itself is an autonomous, independent foundation (DNV GL, 2020b). Hence, Det Norske Veritas Stiftelsen is the sole owner of the DNV GL Group. Figure 5.1 shows corporate governance structure of DNV GL.

Figure 5.1 DNV GL corporate governance structure (DNV GL, 2020b)

For more than 150 years, DNV GL has been able to expand its business from its core service, i.e. classification society that provides advisory for the maritime industry, to other industries (DNV GL, 2020a). This means that they are able to manage intrapreneurial activity including

innovation, corporate venturing as well as strategic renewal. Today DNV GL claims itself as expert in risk management and quality assurance. DNV GL's purpose is to safeguard life, property and the environment. This purpose is implemented into five business areas, i.e.

Maritime, Oil & Gas, Energy, Business Assurance and Digital Solutions plus a Global Shared Services organization and a Group Centre that includes a strategic research unit (Group Technology and Research). (DNV GL, 2020b). Figure 5.2 shows DNV GL operational structure.

Figure 2. DNV GL operational /business area structure (DNV GL, 2020b)

Looking into DNV GL business area structure, intrapreneurial activity, especially innovation, seems being performed under the Group Technology and Research. However, according to the interviewees there are three methods the company to innovate, i.e.(a) Innovation done by Group Technology and Research, (b) Innovation done by each business unit and (c)

Innovation done in collaboration with customers.

5.1.2. Manifestation of uncertainty avoidance and future orientation in DNV GL

The coding result shows the manifestation of national uncertainty avoidance and future orientation within DNV GL. Similar to its national culture, the organization also has high level of uncertainty avoidance and strong future orientation.

DNV GL is a very structured company. They have well documented rules for almost every single organizational practice. These rules are well communicated among their employees through their platform. So, when an employee wants to do an innovation, for example, they know where to find the guide on what innovation they can pursue as well as how to do it.

Table 5.1 Coding result for DNV GL uncertainty avoidance and future orientation

Coding nodes Files References

High uncertainty avoidance

 More orderly

 High desire of rules agenda and routines establishment

 Moderate risk taking

4 6 6

5 19 18

Low uncertainty avoidance

 Less orderly

 Less rules, agenda and routines

 High risk taking

2 0 4

2 0 5 High future orientation

 Long strategic orientation

 Delaying rewards and gratification

5 2

16 5 Low future orientation

 Short strategic orientation

 Instant rewards and gratification

1 0

1 0

5.1.2.1. Uncertainty Avoidance at DNV GL

Table 5.2 indicates that DNV GL possesses a high level of uncertainty avoidance. One major characteristic is the high desire to establish rules, agenda, or routines. The nature of DNV GL business is to generate rules and standards for their customers. DNV GL creates rules, recommended practice and standards to provide safety for their core customers, i.e., shipping industry. The company expands its market to other industries such as oil and gas, energy etc., but products or services still remain to provide rules, recommended practices and standards for the safety of the customers operation. So, it is natural for them to create rules, standard or recommended practice for their internal operation.

“I think the company cannot live with uncertainty in every area all the time. That was not how we work at all. So, we have to choose where we can have uncertainty and how much uncertainty we can live with. And since DNVGL is a company working with risk management, we use different kinds of risk approaches to deal with uncertainty. So, we are seeking an

interesting balance between uncertainty (and risk) and calm water.” (Per Myseth, Head of Department Data Service. Data Management and Analytics)

The coding also shows that DNV GL is a very risk calculating company. DNV GL calculates risk for its customers so the customers can perform their business operation safely. So, it is also natural for DNV GL to calculate the risk for its business as well.

“I am not sure if our foreign colleagues will characterize us as more risk averse than others.

But yes, I can recognize the risk averseness. It is part of culture in DNVGL. It is actually something that we are trying to change. But my personal experience doesn’t really tell me that it is something special with the DNVGL or is more general in the Norwegian society. I think DNVGL is probably risk averse as well. My own opinion is probably also related to the fact that we are quite an old company. We started in 1864. Also many of my colleagues- the people who think about this thing they also said that what we do is actually- you know, we are a very - let say part of the value that we delivered to our customer is actually risk management” (Jon Eivind, Board member, Head of Group IT Office)

Risk management of the company is also well written in a formalized company document – the corporate governance report. According to this document, DNV GL corporate risk process is governed and managed at group level. They will create and maintain a corporate risk register, a numbered list of well-defined risks to DNV GL, throughout the year. This risk register corresponds to the probability of occurrences, and associated consequence to DNV GL if occurring. There is also an update of the risk picture in the quarterly reports. In addition, risk reviews are conducted as part of the strategic plan discussion from a long-term strategic point of view (DNV GL, 2020b).

One may argue that using criteria GLOBE and Grove criteria to elaborate uncertainty avoidance manifestation in the company can be ambiguous. This is quite challenging as well since the criteria mostly deal with risk and regulation. DNV GL is a risk management

company and their role in the industry is to provide regulation. So, elaborating the uncertainty avoidance by using those criteria could not differentiate whether it is national culture that is implemented within the company or if it is the company strategy. Therefore, I include another key characteristic of uncertainty avoidance at work suggested by Hofstede (Hofstede in Riemer, 2007) as shown in Table 5.2. Using these characteristics, we need better understanding of company structure and daily working practices.