Academic intrapreneurs navigating multiple institutional logics: An integrative framework for understanding and supporting intrapreneurship in universities

Although several studies have extensively discussed the role of intrapreneurs, individuals ’ experiences of intrapreneurial processes in the academic context remain largely unexplored. The prominence of intrapreneurial logic in academia has led to increased institutional complexity and highlighting the need for an improved understanding of how to navigate multiple logics present at individual, organizational, and field levels to attain the desired intrapreneurial outcomes. To address these challenges, we propose an integrative framework that captures both organizational and individual-level responses to these multiple logics, while also incorporating intrapreneurial logic. Upon analyzing data from nineteen intrapreneurs across three universities, this study reveals that universities actively uphold the academic logic that intrapreneurs identify as a barrier, compelling them to refine their skills and actively hybridize logics by integrating multiple specific elements of intra-preneurship, teaching, and research. Simultaneously, universities incorporate intrapreneurial logic into their operational processes, even combining multiple logics, which intrapreneurs leverage within their own activities to push their ideas forward. The study offers implications for intrapreneurship literature, academic management, and policymakers to more effectively foster intrapreneurial activities.


Introduction
Intrapreneurship, the inception of new ideas within organizations, is a crucial component of organizational renewal and sustainable competitive advantage (Klofsten et al., 2021).There is growing interest in intrapreneurship in the academic context as a source of new ideas, opportunities, and innovation (Audretsch et al., 2021;Guerrero et al., 2021) to meet societal and national needs.Extant literature predominantly focuses on how academic intrapreneurs create external value through methods such as patenting, licensing, technology transfers to industry, and supporting student start-ups (Hughes et al., 2016).However, they also generate internal value by acquiring funds, establishing new research centers, addressing societal challenges by influencing policies, promoting their university's reputation, and implementing innovative pedagogical initiatives beyond the scope of incremental course development.
Intrapreneurial behavior relies on factors such as management support, work discretion, and resource availability, which often necessitates the adept navigation of bureaucratic obstacles for success (Engzell, 2021;Johnson et al., 2017;Kodeih and Greenwood, 2014;Neves and Brito, 2020).Challenges such as trust deficits and financial constraints within the entrepreneurial ecosystem further complicate intrapreneurial initiatives (Abreu and Grinevich, 2013;Hughes et al., 2016;Klofsten et al., 2019).Academic intrapreneurs thus grapple with multifaceted challenges when venturing beyond their traditional roles and logics (Kuratko et al., 2015;Llopis et al., 2022).Despite the high demand for academic intrapreneurship (Guerrero et al., 2021), previous findings suggest that universities either symbolically integrate intrapreneurship into their structures and academic processes or are prevented from doing so by the extant dominant institutional logics (Heinze and Weber, 2016;Kraatz and Block, 2008).Universities are large organizations comprising several sub-organizations, each with their unique structures, processes, and cultures.Over several centuries, both academics and universities have shaped the academia, created resilient structures, and fostered unique logics that have permeated nearly all societal systems.By the early 1900s, the founders of modern universities had already defined the traditional roles of academics and the institutional logics of teaching and research (Hattie and Marsh, 1996;Llopis et al., 2022).Institutional logics encompass the norms, established rules, idea systems, and thought processes that govern academic research and teaching activities in higher education (Berggren and Karabag, 2019;Thornton and Ocasio, 2008).While academics have mostly been tasked with fulfilling both teaching and research roles in navigating these two logics, Hattie and Marsh (1996) suggest a potential negative relationship between these roles, as competing institutional logics may hinder progress.A recent empirical study, which found that as teaching workload increases, perceived success in research decreases (Cenamor, 2022), reinforced this view, revealing the inherent trade-off between managing multiple roles and logics.Such studies highlight the fact that teaching, research roles, and logic often do not complement or reinforce each other, although other studies reveal that multiple logics can coexist (Kodeih and Greenwood, 2014).Nevertheless, academics now find themselves in an era of "institutional complexity" (Greenwood et al., 2011), which dictates new roles and logics.
The rise of the entrepreneurial university has led to the emergence of a third role-that of the intrapreneurs-and a new logic-intrapreneurial logic-in the academic context (Cos ¸kun et al., 2022), further complicating the strained relationship between existing teaching and academic logics.Some researchers posit that these multiple logics can be managed through organizational structures, while others acknowledge the resilient nature of institutional logics and the resulting need to navigate rather than resolve competing demands, roles, and logics (Kodeih and Greenwood, 2014;Smith and Tracey, 2016).While many studies focus on institutional logics at the field or organizational levels, this study aligns with those by Bévort and Suddaby (2016), Martin et al. (2017), and Spedale and Watson (2014), adopting an individual-centric approach.It aims to bridge the gap between field, organizational, and individual level logics, offering deeper insights into how individuals navigate multiple academic logics while engaging in intrapreneurial actions.It also seeks to provide practical insights by examining the real-life experiences of academic intrapreneurs within the Swedish academic context by exploring how academic intrapreneurs navigate multiple institutional logics at individual, organizational, and field levels.By doing this, the study aspires to provide a comprehensive understanding of how intrapreneurs manage the complexities and tensions arising from different coexisting logics, thereby enhancing our understanding of intrapreneurial processes in academia.This article draws on a qualitative study conducted at three Swedish universities.Insights from 19 interviews with intrapreneurs have helped create an integrative framework for navigating multiple logics in academic intrapreneurial processes, presenting a more nuanced understanding of how to support intrapreneurship in academic contexts.
This paper offers three contributions to the academic intrapreneurship literature.First, it provides a contextualized understanding of how different logics interact in academic intrapreneurial processes (Guerrero et al., 2015).Although some recent studies have highlighted an evolving higher education landscape, in which previously dominant academic and teaching logics are now supplemented by commercial and intrapreneurial logics (Fini and Toschi, 2016;Hughes et al., 2016;Llopis et al., 2022;Perkmann et al., 2019), others suggest that they have been challenged and contested by this new logic (Berggren and Karabag, 2019;Heinze and Weber, 2016).By uncovering the multiple institutional logics at play in the academic field and understanding how they are navigated in the daily lives of academic intrapreneurs and their organizations, we further explicate how intrapreneurial logic can be considered a response to not only the rivalry caused by academic logic (Llopis et al., 2022;Oostervink et al., 2016) but also the "institutional complexity" (Greenwood et al., 2011).Thus, we offer a framework for understanding responses to multiple logics within academic intrapreneurial processes.
Second, this study focuses on intrapreneurial processes, highlighting the individual experiences of academic intrapreneurs and effectively building on previous work to bridge the gap between organizational and individual responses to institutional complexity (Bévort and Suddaby, 2016;Greenwood et al., 2011;Martin et al., 2017;Spedale and Watson, 2014).It also complements intrapreneurship studies that follow a solely organization-centric approach (e.g.Kuratko et al., 2015).Delving into individual experiences and behaviors during an intrapreneurial project (Blanka, 2019;Engzell, 2021;Neessen et al., 2019), especially in an academic setting (Bévort and Suddaby, 2016;Siegel and Wright, 2015), requires a compilation of organizational-and individual-level responses observed in intrapreneurial processes.Analyzing intrapreneurs can also provide insights into to how actors catalyze institutional change (Cai and Mountford, 2022) and infuse new logics aligned with their strategic intentions.
Third, this study reveals that intrapreneurs frequently encounter challenges in their intrapreneurial journey.Previous studies suggest that academic organizational conditions not only facilitate initiatives by offering access to resources (Miranda et al., 2017), supportive colleagues, or leaders (Johnson et al., 2017) but also introduce impediments such as constraining governance structures (Kivleniece and Quelin, 2012).Consequently, this paper expands the intrapreneurship literature by investigating the kinds of barriers (competing dominant logics at the organizational level) that intrapreneurs must overcome.Lastly, this paper offers practical management implications and policies to guide intrapreneurs in navigating the academic landscape effectively.
This article unfolds as follows: First, it provides an overview of previous research on intrapreneurship and institutional logics, complemented with the landscape and institutional logics of Swedish academia.Next, it describes the methodology, followed by the findings outlining a framework incorporating multiple logics and both organizational and individual responses in the intrapreneurial processes.Subsequently, these findings and their implications are discussed within the context of the theoretical background, culminating in conclusions and suggestions for future research.

Intrapreneurship in the academic setting
In recent years, the need for intrapreneurship has increased, becoming especially important in a technology-driven, global, and competitive academic environment (Glinyanova et al., 2021).The involvement of academic employees in intrapreneurship has become a highly relevant topic, as they can contribute to the utilization and commercialization of scientific knowledge (Huyghe et al., 2016;Perkmann et al., 2013), improve digital technologies for education (Secundo et al., 2020), create new organizations (Stuart and Ding, 2006), influence external collaboration (Munoz et al., 2020), and boost their university's brand, image, and reputation.Academic institutions must compete to attract students, facilitate external collaboration, attract external funding, and much more.Thus, the inception and execution of intrapreneurial initiatives are key concerns for many universities' top management to improve their dynamic entrepreneurial capabilities (Klofsten et al., 2021).Nowadays, intrapreneurship is considered a competitive advantage and a factor that increases organizational performance (Engzell, 2021;Neessen et al., 2019).Intrapreneurship in academia is traditionally defined as innovative activities extending beyond teaching and research roles, entailing risk, and potentially leading to financial or reputational gains (Abreu and Grinevich, 2013, p. 408).This study broadens this definition, acknowledging that non-academic staff such as administrators can also exhibit intrapreneurial behavior and defining an academic intrapreneur as any university employee who takes initiative beyond regular duties to serve a wider purpose within the academic environment (Boon et al., 2013).
Academic intrapreneurs' behaviors often stem from engagement with and expectations of the "third mission" of serving society and the private sector beyond traditional roles (Clauss et al., 2018).This requires competencies such as resource mobilization, networking, external collaboration, realization (Bienkowska and Klofsten, 2012), ideation, proactiveness, and risk aversion (de Jong et al., 2015).Intrapreneurs accomplish these by creating, modifying, replacing, or discarding their capabilities and organizational and institutional logics.

Institutional logics in the academic setting
This research defines institutional logics as the established norms, ideas, symbols, and guidelines that regulate the actions of individuals and organizations, and fields (Berggren and Karabag, 2019;Thornton and Ocasio, 2008).Institutional logics that link individual actions with institutional norms and rules are produced and reproduced by actors.In academia, institutional logics fall under four categories: academic, market, managerial, and state (Cai and Mountford, 2022), with recent studies harnessing institutional logics to explain dynamics such as institutional complexity and fragmentation, as well as individual and organizational processes (Berggren and Karabag, 2019;Dudau et al., 2018).
Dealing with institutional pluralism involves navigating multiple regulatory frameworks, adhering to various normative orders, and operating within and between multiple logics.Emerging studies seek to explain the extent to which a new logic diffuses into the field, organization, and individual actions.Research has found that the emerging logic of sustainability and corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting has permeated the business field, despite no changes being seen in organizational and individual practices.Thus, despite growing policy interest in introducing intrapreneur logic to the academic context to increase institutional plurality and complexity, it remains to be seen how widely this new logic will be embraced by organizations.This suggests a need to broaden the knowledge base by exploring how the logic of intrapreneurship interacts at different levels in academia (Cai and Mountford, 2022;Martin et al., 2017) and how intrapreneurs implement or induce strategies and tactics to establish and fortify organizational niches in alignment with the emerging logic (Cai and Mountford, 2022;Heinze and Weber, 2016;Martin et al., 2017).
When confronted with contradictory instructions from multiple institutional logics-a phenomenon known as "institutional complexity" (Greenwood et al., 2011)-individuals often experience conflicting working conditions and struggle to mitigate uncertainty while selecting the instructions and norms to follow (Oostervink et al., 2016).This study builds on and expands prior research (Kodeih and Greenwood, 2014;Thornton and Ocasio, 2008) by further explicating how multiple logics and other aspects at the field, organizational, and individual levels can influence intrapreneurial processes in academia and identifying the organizational and individual responses to these multiple logics (Heinze and Weber, 2016;Martin et al., 2017).However, separating the academic context from the individual and organizational levels is challenging due to the complexity of institutional logics and individual identity orientations (Bévort and Suddaby, 2016;Spedale and Watson, 2014).This study primarily concentrates on academic, teaching, and corporate logics as dominant, while regarding intrapreneurial logic as emerging, despite elements of state logic in academia.Thus, this study acknowledges the presence of multiple logics at macro-(academia), meso-(organization/university), and micro-levels (Cai and Mountford, 2022;Martin et al., 2017).

The landscape and institutional logics of Swedish academia
Swedish universities 1 aim to serve the state by providing higher education, conducting research, producing knowledge, and engaging in collaboration with society.Historically, Swedish higher education institutions (HEIs) and academia were centrally planned, steered, and coordinated, guided by an academic institutional logic 2 that "focuses on the specific nature of research activities" and "the interests of the academic community" (Grossi et al., 2020, pp. 822-823).
Over time, universities have adopted management logics and practices that represent the "marketization or corporatization" of universities (Parker, 2011).A drastic series of reforms began modifying universities and the institutional field around 1990 (See, for example, SOU, 1992), inspired by the "new public management" and "management by objectives" movements (Modell, 2003).Sweden's economic crisis and recession of the 1990s spurred reforms that sought to enhance the effectiveness of HEIs' performance.These reforms, designed to promote students' and employees' interests, reduced the government's role in determining HEIs' overall mission, guidelines, quality evaluation, and resource allocation, thereby increasing the autonomy and responsibility of universities and colleges, which has resulted in competition among universities to recruit students, obtain research funding, and increase revenue streams.The Swedish Govt. Bill 2000/2001(2000) aimed to cultivate a strong research environment by establishing several research funding bodies, such as the Swedish Research Councils (including Vetenskapsrådet, Forte, and Formas).Leading national agencies and private foundations of various sizes competitively allocate research funding to HEIs, with the intent of replacing the government's historical block research funding for universities with competitive external research funding.By the middle of the 2010s, external funding from competitive applications accounted for more than half of the total research funding for Swedish HEIs.Concurrently, Vinnova, the Swedish Innovation Agency, was commissioned to outline the "third mission" of universities (i.e., collaborating with industrial and societal actors and transferring knowledge and technology from HEIs to society).Vinnova, and later some other national agencies, primarily financed triple-helix-oriented research centers, reflecting the Swedish government's wish to gradually transition from traditional universities to entrepreneurial (Etzkowitz et al., 2008) and mission-oriented ones.
These reforms were followed by the implementation of a new research resource allocation model known as performance-related funding systems, initially utilized in Australia and the United Kingdom.The model systematically measures publications and citations to help universities focus their education and research on their areas of strength, thereby enhancing their prospects for achieving international recognition in the global publication market (SOU, 2007).It was adopted in Sweden around 2009.Initially intended for national resource allocation among universities, nearly all Swedish universities rapidly 1 The context of this study, Swedish higher education institutions (HEIs), includes 17 comprehensive and specialized universities and 13 university (vocational) colleges, 27 of which are public, while the other 3 are independent institutions.These HEIs and other art and vocational colleges educate approximately 454,000 students annually, employing over 32,000 academic staff (UK Ä, 2022).While universities offer the first, second, and third cycles of education, university colleges generally provide the first cycle and offer a 60-credit associate's degree education (Pinheiro et al., 2019).
2 An institutional logic can be defined as the "broader cultural beliefs and rules that structure cognition and guide decision-making in a field" (Lounsbury, 2008).A central assumption is that organizations construct rules, practices, rewards, and sanctions, which are further developed and converted into regularized and predictable individual behaviors through socialization (Fini and Toschi, 2016).
tailored the model to their local contexts, implementing it at faculty, institute, and individual levels (Hammarfelt et al., 2016).However, the Swedish academic environment now faces several challenges such as tightening budgets and increasing global competition (Ek et al., 2013).Additionally, reforms have resulted in broadened administrative structures, characterized by a significant surge in the number of 'professional' management appointees and a proliferation of administrators at both the central level and within faculties/schools, presumably to reinforce managerial and state control (Agevall and Olofsson, 2020).This trend reflects the intensification of a corporate logic in Swedish universities.Nowadays, academic and teaching logics are complemented or contested by other logics, such as corporate or entrepreneurial (Ek et al., 2013;Llopis et al., 2022), as reforms have fundamentally changed the prerequisites for education, research funding, and the accountability and governance of HEIs based on the assumption that universities should now educate students, facilitate knowledge sharing in society, contribute to new ventures, and maintain the competitiveness of corporations (Klofsten et al., 2019).
The multiple missions of universities lead to tensions arising from different logics at play-at the individual, organizational, and field levels-driven by diverging expectations and goals.Few studies have examined how these reforms-such as competition in funding research activities, resource allocation based on publication performance, and the allocation of resources based on student inflow and outflow-have impacted and transformed academic fields and the norms and beliefs of Swedish HEIs and academia.Hansen et al. (2019) indicated that some Swedish higher education teachers believe that increased focus on quality evaluations created competition among programs and universities.Berggren and Karabag (2019) identified three competing institutional logics-market, scientific, and medical-that motivated defenders and opponents in the infamous Paolo Macchiarini research misconduct case at Karolinska Institute.Henningsson and Geschwind (2022) found that six different logics (state, academic, managerial, market, community, and family) promote and direct inbred recruitment and limited mobility in Swedish academia, while sustaining institutional inertia.Market logic is the most common, followed by scientific and academic logics (Berggren and Karabag, 2019;Henningsson and Geschwind, 2022).The historical account of Swedish academia and previous studies highlights that diverse logics have actively been introduced by the reforms.However, few studies have examined the diffusion of such logics, how they interact with and may challenge the dominant logic, and how individuals and organizations can contribute to or challenge this new logic (Heinze and Weber, 2016).

Research design
Previous studies on intrapreneurship build on quantitative research (Kalar and Antoncic, 2015;Valka et al., 2020) and the conceptual elaboration of academic intrapreneurship (Blanka, 2019).However, the understanding of intrapreneurial processes in academia can be enriched by also considering micro-level practices of academic intrapreneurship and intrapreneurs' preparation and execution of the processes (Balven et al., 2018;Soncin and Arnaboldi, 2022).Thus, to complement previous research, this study adopts a qualitative methodological stance, relying on an interpretive, in-depth, case study research design (see e.g., Burkholder and Hulsink, 2022) to explore academic intrapreneurs' experience of intrapreneurial processes, from intention and inception until its finalization, to identify how the navigate the multiple institutional logics present.

Case selection and settings
A purposive case sampling technique, deemed appropriate when the goal is theoretical development rather than generalizability of findings, was employed (Creswell and Poth, 2016).Our cases-intrapreneurial initiatives-were selected from three Swedish universities, chosen to ensure variety (Doh et al., 2022).They included: a) an established and historical university (Old Uni), b) a specialized university (Tech Uni), and c) a newly founded university (Nascent Uni).
The cases covered different settings of research and teaching, societal environment, generations of universities, generations of intrapreneurs and institutional typologies, which allowed us to reach out to distinct intrapreneurs (Rhoades and Stensaker, 2017) and compare and contrast the intrapreneurial initiatives within and between the three universities.
In order to identify interviewees, we first identified intrapreneurial initiatives in the three universities by searching for online information via the HEI's webpages and reading newsletters.Inspired by Abreu andGrinevich (2013), D'Este andPatel (2007), and Audretsch et al. (2021), we considered examples of relevant formal and informal intrapreneurial, value-creating activities, such as engaging in strategic collaboration with stakeholders, founding research centers and programs, attaining large sums of research grants from national or international financiers such as the EU, innovating and commercializing new technologies and ideas, establishing radically new education programs, developing radically new teaching methods and textbooks, fundraising, and initiating stakeholder engagement.All the initiatives identified entailed innovative value-creating activities beyond the traditional academic roles of teaching and research, implying that the intrapreneurs took risks that potentially led to financial or reputational gains for a wider purpose within the academic environment.
Ultimately, we identified 19 academic intrapreneurial initiatives that were deemed sufficient, given that the validity of qualitative research is determined by information-richness rather than the sample size (Glesne, 2016;Saunders and Townsend, 2016).Tables 1 and 2 provide an overview of the initiatives and intrapreneurs, which have been anonymized to protect their privacy and personal integrity.

Data collection
Data were mainly sourced from interviews with academic intrapreneurs about their initiatives and complemented by related material from university websites, newspapers, etc.The authors collectively developed a semi-structured interview guide, including 24 questions covering the intrapreneurs' background, inception and development of their intrapreneurial initiatives, their implementation, and intrapreneurs' personal experiences from this or similar initiatives (see Appendix A for the full guide).The interview invitation contained information about the purpose of the research and how the data would be collected, analyzed, and reported.
Interviews were conducted in person when possible, or through digital meeting services, spanning 40-63 min (see details in Table 2), involving all authors.Data collection occurred over a five-month period.At the start of each interview, the interviewer recapped the aim of the research, reiterated how the data will be used, and offered to answer any questions.The interviews were recorded after obtaining the interviewees' permission and later transcribed to facilitate analysis.

Data analysis
The analysis followed the steps of thematic analysis (Strauss and Corbin, 2008) inspired by the Gioia methodology (Gioia et al., 2013), entailing different levels of coding and categorization arriving at aggregate themes, centering on discerning patterns related to the multiple logics in intrapreneurial processes from the perspective of the intrapreneur.
The first step involved listening to audio recordings and reading interview transcripts while searching for meaning and patterns prior to formal coding.The next step was coding the material using open, axial, and selective coding (Strauss and Corbin, 2008), which involved all authors.They read and reread the interview transcripts, coded, sorted, and reordered accounts related to various aspects of intrapreneurial processes and multiple logics and discussed emerging themes until they arrived at a consensus on interpretations and meanings.
During the analysis, an abductive approach (Dubois and Gadde, 2002) was employed entailing iterations between data and themes gained from the interviews and previous theories related to intrapreneurial processes and institutional logics (Soncin and Arnaboldi, 2022), such as precepting events, opportunity recognition, intrapreneurial activity inception, activity in development, activity implementation, and outcome (Antoncic and Hisrich, 2003), which highlighted the relevance of discussing both individual-and organizational-level responses.An overview of the data analysis is depicted in Table 3.

Methodological limitations
Our study only considers publicly acknowledged intrapreneurial initiatives that are somewhat successful or under progress.Despite our efforts, including employing strategies like snowball sampling, finding "unsuccessful" cases remained a challenge.Failed projects are often not publicized or easily accessible (c.f.Mellahi and Wilkinson, 2004) because they may damage intrapreneurs' or universities' reputation.Moreover, they might feel personally responsible for the lack of success (Karabag, 2019).Therefore, finding a comparable number of uninitiated or failed intrapreneurial cases proved challenging and were not included in this study.
The degree of implementation varies among the cases, and some are still ongoing despite uncertainty about long-term sustainability and impact.Nevertheless, ideas that were never launched or did not succeed at the very early stage were not included in this study.Although this could be considered a limitation, the findings on responses to multiple logics in intrapreneurial processes in academia are still relevant, as they indicate potential obstacles and hurdles in the implementation of initiatives.Many intrapreneurs shared experiences from other initiatives, shedding light on why some were implemented, while others were not.Studying unsuccessful initiatives could provide valuable insights and

S Education
Old Uni A book that was designed to educate not only those within academic institutions but also various industrial entities.It was adopted by several companies to empower their professionals to craft sustainable solutions.Notably, this book was penned outside of regular work hours.

2020-2023
J. Engzell et al. potentially corroborate this study's findings, but it would require a different approach to sampling and identification.Similarly, we noted that several interviewees held or had previous experience in managerial positions within academia, before or during the initiative.Although this knowledge and experience could have contributed to the implementation of some initiatives, this study did not specifically explore how individuals acquired such skills and competence.The risk that interviewees may have given socially desirable responses cannot be eliminated but may be minimized (Bergen and Labonté, 2020).The complementary news articles and information we sought were used to validate information across multiple sources (Ambos & Tatarinov, 2022) thereby supporting data triangulation.We asked direct as well as indirect and follow-up questions, which allowed us to explore nuanced responses.The strategy of interviewing only one intrapreneur in each case can be justified as they were the most knowledgeable about their specific intrapreneurial activities (Auerbach and Silverstein, 2003).While a single informant may not describe all aspects of each case, few others could report the same details about the process.Although multiple informants are preferable, full data saturation is rarely achieved (Karabag, 2019;O'reilly & Parker, 2013).

Findings
Our study sought to explore how academic intrapreneurs navigate multiple institutional logics at individual, organizational, and field levels.The in-depth narratives shared by the intrapreneurs revealed experiences indicating that navigating intrapreneurial processes and coping with the multiple logics present is anything but simple, as each journey is grounded in its own specific time and context.Still, when examining the narratives, some common themes were noted, which have been compiled into an integrative framework of responses to multiple institutional logics in intrapreneurial processes in academia, as depicted in Fig. 1.
The framework outlines an iterative flow where the academic intrapreneurial processes3 (represented as a gradient arrow) are influenced or even triggered by the multiple institutional logics present in academia.During each, we observed organizational-and individuallevel responses (i.e., ways of coping) to the multiple logics.Having navigated the intrapreneurial processes, we identified five typical outcomes: educational, research-oriented, faculty-oriented, societal collaboration, and organizational.However, to complete the cycle of this iterative process, we also argue that it is essential to acknowledge that intrapreneurial processes and their resultant outcomes can contribute to maintaining or possibly altering the expectations at the field, organizational, and individual levels concerning intrapreneurial activity in academia, which perpetuates the existence of multiple logics.
The framework brings further clarity regarding how intrapreneurial outcomes are influenced by both individual-and organizational-level responses to the multiple interacting logics present.The following sections elaborate on each of the five responses, supported by empirical data.The 2nd order themes from our data structure (Table 3) are noted in the text with italics.Additional quotes supporting our analysis can be found in Appendix B.

Building resistance toward the inclusion of intrapreneurial logic
Our analysis reflects a complicated reality regarding the inclusion or acceptance of intrapreneurial logic from an organizational perspective in relation to working conditions in academia, as the intrapreneurs expressed different perceptions of what was in fact contributing to building resistance toward multiple logics in general, and intrapreneurial logic in particular, as well as how they chose to tackle it.We highlight three recurring organizational responses related to the working conditions in academia, which the intrapreneurs claim "did not encourage" inclusion of intrapreneurial logic in academia, or where academic and intrapreneurial logics seemed to be at odds with each other.
Several intrapreneurs describe working contexts that were setting narrowly defined criteria for academic career paths (an indication of academic logic at the organization level).This was considered problematic by them, regardless of the academic title or managerial background of the intrapreneur, not least in light of the three main tasks of Swedish universities, which implies that publication is not the only priority.Intrapreneurs who dedicated extra time and effort to pursue their ideas and create additional value for the university felt provoked that their efforts were not recognized as merits toward their academic career, suggesting that their managers did not always acknowledge or embrace the value they added through intrapreneurial activities.As noted by Janet from case D at TechUni: When you hear several people telling you this is important and then there is nothing more to it, that is very sad.You don't get appreciation for it, and it is even considered negatively in terms of your own development.It is also clear from our interviews that Swedish academics have several tasks on their plate and seem to be treated more like consultants who need to "bill their time" while the academic support systems can only offer minimum support.Allocating insufficient time for different tasks thus appeared to be a typical response from that effectively indicated a resistance toward including intrapreneurial logic in any practical sense, as employees struggled to deliver on expectations, with intrapreneurial initiatives often ending up at the bottom of the list of priorities.Karen from case Q at OldUni described how she managed multiple tasks: Teaching and research.I don't think they are overlapping.I think it's actually a good thing to call us entrepreneurs because to be a successful university professor in many places now, you have to be a bit of an entrepreneur.I think perhaps the key is actually to see teaching and research as overlapping.To be good at finding funding; you actually need to be a decent researcher, I think, but you should also be a decent teacher because otherwise, you can't write a convincing application.Some intrapreneurs also describe the competitive side of academic logic, where a "win" for someone is considered a "loss" for someone else.However, this implies an organizational response of building up rivalry between departments/divisions (an example of conflicting logic at the organization level), suggesting that the inclusion of intrapreneurial logic, which seeks to create collective organizational value in new ways, is not always embraced by managers or colleagues representing and advocating other logics.Tom at OldUni described the reaction of his colleagues at another department when they launched their new program, initiative O:

Initially there was a tension with the […] department because they didn't want us there at all and believed that creating this type of […] unit at the technical faculty was a crazy idea and were absolutely competitive […]
[as] we showed up on the block, starting to put out courses that the engineering students preferred to take instead of their courses.[…].In the long run, it didn't really matter.But that was an example of this type of power [dynamic].

Promoting the hybridization of logics
Similar to our analysis of building resistance toward the inclusion of intrapreneurial logics, what is perceived as promoting the hybridization of logics-merging or merely accepting the existence of multiple logics at the organizational level-could differ according to our interviewees.Some agreement could be reached concerning aspects that were "not hindering or obstructing" intrapreneurial initiatives.Our interviewees revealed that the academic environment could promote this hybridization of logics by building a flexible environment that was open to new ideas.The interaction between research, education, and cooperation creates good conditions for a dynamic environment where new ideas may be implemented.Academic freedom-which refers to the autonomy of research and every researcher's right to freely choose a research topic or method and publish the results-was mentioned as a common ground in academia.Janet, in case D, TechUni, expressed the advantages of flexibilities in "academic freedom": I hope that it will not only be allowed to remain but also grow stronger.It is very important.Because it lends some legitimacy to this [intrapreneurship], even if it doesn't push for it.
Many intrapreneurs noted that ensuring stable and secure working conditions from which to build something new is also important in embracing multiple logics in the organization.Stability and psychological safety are essential for people to feel confident that navigating multiple logics will not destroy the foundation of the organization.Employment is a stable source of income when taking risks to initiate something new and having "competence development time" is a valuable resource to promote experimentation and embrace multiple logics.A few intrapreneurs also mentioned the stability of administration and informal structures for support, as well as the close connection to research processes as important in this regard.Diana stated this about her case L at NascentUni: The academic environment makes the idea seem stable and thoughtfully evaluated, which is what also makes it implementable.
Another aspect that was believed to promote the hybridization of logics at the organizational level was providing managerial support.In many cases, the intrapreneurs mentioned that their managers invested either time or money in the initiative, actively promoting and accepting the inclusion of an intrapreneurial logic, in some cases acting as role models themselves.A few also mentioned that their managers sacrificed their reputation by supporting a project that was either unknown or uncertain, indicating that top management support is crucial for an individual to dare to pursue intrapreneurial actions.One intrapreneur, Mary, described her initiative to start a new incubator, case J, at NascentUni: My manager invested status and prestige for me to go beyond the established norm of doing things.
Several intrapreneurs provided examples of how the hybridization of logics during the process of developing their initiatives was supported by continuous development and redesign of the initiative, which allowed for a more experimental trial-and-error or learning-by-doing approach in identifying how to navigate the multiple logics as they embarked on their intrapreneurial journey, rather than having everything figured out from the start.This implied that they were actively looking for and working with feedback gained through interactions with collaborators, supporters, critics, incubators, and others to continuously improve their initiatives.Consequently, the initiatives where often redesigned or morphed during the process of implementation to better fit the current circumstances and opportunities, suggesting that the hybridization of logics is not a one-time quick fix but rather a situated process, assuming many different forms.Donna, from Case I at NascentUni, described the many twists and turns it took for her initiative to find its current form: I had previously worked with a concept called [X], which was continuation program for [regional division].I gained more knowledge about [the topic] and, in collaboration with the [municipality] and their project manager, began to think about the pilot projects that could be attempted to continue working with [topic A].Then I created a study circle with a team of [employees working with topic].A in the municipality My first idea was to work with these teams and that they together can develop what it could look like.We wrote some applications for this but did not get the money, but then there was an opportunity when [Lab] started at [NascentUni].Getting help there became a springboard … Then we got the opportunity to continue working on a research project called [Y], where I worked with two pedagogical experts at the university and another group working on [topic B].We could conduct research together in a few settings and now we have some results.

Legitimizing the integration of intrapreneurial logic
Our analysis highlights organizational responses to the multiple logics that were important to legitimize the integration of intrapreneurial logic related to the perceived response from colleagues and external partners, the financial/economic circumstances for the initiative, and how media and branding were leveraged to build support.
It appears that although many of the intrapreneurs described a generally positive collegial attitude toward intrapreneurial initiatives and embracing an intrapreneurial logic, in some cases, risk-averse colleagues also cautioned against assuming additional tasks that may be detrimental to career advancement, amplifying the potential conflict with the dominant academic logic.Some colleagues would take an indifferent stance, minding their own business and not really caring about what others were doing.The attitudes could also shift over time from discussions about the initial idea to full-fledged implementation.However, having a champion in high places can indeed make all the difference in terms of influencing the local discourse and setting norms about how to integrate an intrapreneurial logic, thereby paving the way and legitimizing initiatives, as conveyed by Tom from case O at OldUni: I think there were two really important supporters, and one was the Head of Department at the time [ …] he was kind of supportive.And then there was professor in [topic] who was very supportive of, I think me, but also our division.He saw the point of what we were doing and then he saw I think me.[…] They saw that I seemed to be a trustworthy person.A likable person, I guess.[…] So, all of a sudden, you had more sponsors.But I think that the initial push was from having a really good champion in this.And the point was that this professor in [topic] was very influential at the faculty and the department at that time because they were so big.And he had a personality that was also kind of influential.So, I guess if you had his backing, it was kind of easy to get a few more things going.
Many of the intrapreneurial initiatives also relied on engaging partners and collaborators outside of academia, regardless of whether the initiative was related to education, research, or something else.Having external partners was essential to convey the value of the initiative and, by extension, the potential value of the intrapreneurial logic, as it appeared to be difficult for the academic organization to fully acknowledge this on its own.Thus, this could be leveraged to establish legitimacy or credibility.Ian, the intrapreneur in Case B at TechUni, described how helpful it was to have the support from industrial partners to launch the initiative-a research program focused on collaboration with industry: Back in the days, the managers and CTOs at MobileTech, AutomotiveCo, and CommunicateInc were rather special persons.Their industries were booming, and a lot centered on these companies, and they were both controversial and spectacular.These managers thought this [initiative] was great and wanted us to do this, so they helped us knock on the doors of some other companies.
The extent to which securing sufficient financial/economic support mattered differed among our intrapreneurial initiatives.Although funding should have little to do with institutional logics, in the more market-oriented side of academia, funding appears to be a very clear signal of what is appreciated and accepted.Thus, for some, in particular the more large-scale research or educational initiatives, (external) funding was essential to kickstart the initiative and obtaining funding-whether from the university or external partners-could signify supporting the integration of the intrapreneurial logic.For others, it was quite the opposite: the absence of funding (and thereby attention) could be used to legitimize having an intrapreneurial initiative as a sideproject operating discreetly.Peter at Case E at TechUni, explained how obtaining funding was important, especially during a difficult time at the university: This is the largest investment ever at [TechUni] when it comes to education: 200 million for 10 years, so it is 20 million per year.It is amazing.My contacts at other universities are incredibly jealous.[Without funding] this [initiative] would have been really controversial.But we had a tough time here at [TechUni] around the same time as we got this funding.We now have ten percent fewer employees than before.And, of course, many department managers felt that our funding could have been useful at their department, so in that sense it was controversial I would say.
Several of the intrapreneurs also described how media could be leveraged to shape the impression of the initiatives, thereby obtaining media recognition and branding as a strategic tool to combine and make space for multiple logics.Media can be leveraged to not only gain support and legitimacy but also encourage people to become involved in the initiative, to show that it was indeed possible to integrate intrapreneurial logic in combination with others in academia.Steve at initiative A at TechUni explains the importance of media and branding in attracting the first students to this educational initiative: First, we created a really cool brochure where we got [CEO] and [manager at ComCo] to join to get things going, and that was extremely legitimizing.We could get them to say that this was the future, this was needed, etc.And that enabled us to recruit a really good group of students that first year.

Developing individual capabilities to enact intrapreneurial logic
Our analysis concludes that developing individual capabilities to implement intrapreneurial logics is necessary for the success of intrapreneurial initiatives.Drawing on personal motivation is essential to the inception and realization of intrapreneurial ideas and initiatives.This suggests that intrapreneurial processes are highly individualized, which is why two people pursuing identical ideas in the same context, may end up implementing intrapreneurial logic in different ways, depending on their personalities, previous experiences, local contextual factors, and so on.As stated by Peter about case E at TechUni:

I think it definitely mattered [that it was me in this position], and [colleague]-we have pushed it in this direction. I don't think many others could have done that.
Peter seemed to recognize that he (and his colleague) had something that others did not.It is equally clear that another important response to the multiple institutional logics at play is that the intrapreneurs are very perceptive in recognizing and seizing windows of opportunity, where other colleagues may be oblivious or uninterested.Intrapreneurial individuals search for ways to change things and embrace the shifts in the composition of institutional logics that may open up new paths for actions that were previously not possible.Mary, from case J at NascentUni said: There is a whole other "window" to work with these issues now than before [compared to 2016].There is an openness to these issues now, which was not there before.The question of innovation, research, utilization, and so on has drastically changed over time.
In some circumstances this even implied seizing a window of opportunity for themselves, by turning a perceived problem into an actionable task.To take advantage of potential opportunities, intrapreneurs actively engage in building networks, both inside and outside of academia, to not only get approval or permission but also create awareness, enlist support, and create a space for action at the intersection between different institutional logics.Jennie, from case N at Old-Uni, described the importance of having the right contacts to help get her initiative off the ground: So, we went to Stockholm, and we met with the national point of contact and discussed with her, and that was only possible because they [coordinators at OldUni] knew her personally.And I got a lot of good advice.So, I think that was instrumental for me getting that project actually.
In addition, the intrapreneurs were very skilled at utilizing and mobilizing resources needed to realize the intrapreneurial idea, which required being knowledgeable about the possibilities and limitations of the academic system and the underlying logic.Janet, the intrapreneur in case D at TechUni, describes it as: It's not even about using your informal network, because sometimes you have to create that network and understand who needs to be in it.And it doesn't have to be about politics like "If I can speak to him there, well then I am sure that …" It could be as simple as "Who needs to know about this before I can even send an e-mail about it?"I call first; send an e-mail after.
The creativity and freedom of idea development is also an important aspect of implementing intrapreneurial logic, as it implies ample room for flexibility, maneuvering, and working with circumstances and uncertain resources at any given moment, a kind of challenge that propels the initiative forward, keeping the interest alive.However, it could also result in tricky situations, as the timing and manner of seizing opportunities to move forward cannot be predicted.Thus, this meant accepting that there are no clear rules in the intrapreneurial process, as Karen from Case Q at OldUni described: When I got the program, I kind of panicked.Because I didn't expect it.I had a three-year contract with another industry.So, it was a bit complicated, and we were supposed to begin in January 2020.So, the pandemic came along quite soon, and it was a bit tricky.
Implementing intrapreneurial logic also requires intrapreneurs to engage in problem-solving and managing crises, which are perceived as stimulating and challenging, as described by Peter from case E at TechUni: We have very creative and flexible solutions and have found solutions to the problems and that is what is so fun.And then we have this drive to do this [case E] not only offer a good education to the student but also show that we can acknowledge the world around us-society-and experiment with things.

Individual challenges in implementing the hybridization of logics
Intrapreneurs' accounts of their experiences of intrapreneurial initiatives pointed to the individual challenges they faced to implement a hybridization of logics, striving to find the middle ground with the multiple logics simultaneously at play.When they described their journeys, they often mentioned the problem of managing time between deadlines in research, teaching, and external collaborations, which points to a fundamental issue in the hybridization of logics: even if we embrace the multiple logics surrounding us, we still have limited time to accomplish the expected deliverables according to each logic, as long as no complete fusion of logics has occurred and a new supra-logic is formed.The majority of intrapreneurs worked with their intrapreneurial initiatives in parallel with their regular tasks; some stated that they also used their competence development time for the initiative.Being an intrapreneur poses a personal challenge in maintaining work-life balance, as Miriam from Case R at Old Uni expressed: I am not sure how much I work.I have the kids every other week, which makes it easier to slow down the work … In some cases, engaging in intrapreneurship appeared to raise conflicted emotions related to managing the established position and professional identity (e.g., professor, associate professor), indicating that coping with multiple logics also implies living with multiple identities, or managing different views of oneself.Many intrapreneurs aspired to engage in multidisciplinary work, without losing prestige or status in the academic community when changing roles, measuring "success" according to both the academic and intrapreneurial logic.Several mentioned that they already had an established academic role as well as other complementing roles.As Diana from case L at Nascent Uni illustrated: I wear three hats right now: I continue to conduct research, perform supervisory work, and encourage innovation to inspire and support other research ideas so that they are implemented, while continuing to pursue the concept I have started.
Managing risks was another essential individual response to the multiple logics present in the intrapreneurial process.Some believed that risk-taking came with the territory of embracing intrapreneurial logic, as it was part of the planned implementation of the intrapreneurial project and was necessary to achieve the desired outcome.Others argued that risk-taking constituted a potential threat to future career advancement and could potentially stifle the hybridization of logics, as Peter at initiative E at TechUni explained: I think you should make sure to at least be a docent first.It's very boring advice but I would say so.Then, you have your academic platform and it's just a matter of running.

Theoretical contribution
The article answers the call to further examine not only intrapreneurial processes and outcomes in the academic context (Gibb and Hannon, 2006;Guerrero et al., 2015Guerrero et al., , 2021;;Heinze and Weber, 2016) but also logics at the individual and organizational levels (Blanka, 2019;Neessen et al., 2019).It illuminates intrapreneurial logic of "balancing between academic parameters and personal desires to initiate something new, " which complements prior studies that have focused on managerial and entrepreneurial logics (Fini and Toschi, 2016;Parker, 2011).We propose an integrative framework, capturing field, organizational, and individual level responses to the multiple logics in academic intrapreneurial processes, specifically, the integration of intrapreneurial logic.
The study contributes to developing contextualized knowledge about intrapreneurial processes specifically in the academic context, by describing how they unfold in light of multiple, co-existing, and occasionally conflicting institutional logics.It also delineates the interactions among logics at various levels-from academia to universities and individuals.As outlined in earlier research (Llopis et al., 2022;Oostervink et al., 2016), the complexity within and expectations from universities have evolved, with dominant academic and teaching logics now being either complemented or contested by more commercial, competitive (Berggren and Karabag, 2019;Hammarfelt et al., 2016;Henningsson and Geschwind, 2022), and entrepreneurial logic (Fini and Toschi, 2016;Perkmann et al., 2019) at the organizational level.Moreover, extensive reforms in Swedish higher education, (See, for example, Hammarfelt et al., 2016;SOU, 1992;SOU, 2007;The Swedish Govt. Bill, 2000/2001, 2000) have multiplied the logics-academic, teaching, corporate, and intrapreneurial-leading to competition among these logics at the academic, field, and organizational levels.Interestingly, most universities appear to uphold the academic logic (Hammarfelt et al., 2016) as reflected in the actions of academic managers (Kodeih and Greenwood, 2014).This conflicts with intrapreneurial logic and poses challenges to individuals' intrapreneurial initiatives.Some universities and managers, however, selectively filter these logics or strategically embrace new ones, hybridizing them in support of intrapreneurial logic (Martin et al., 2017), thereby responding to varied demands from the field and organizational levels and enabling intrapreneurs to navigate a complex landscape.Simultaneously, intrapreneurs refine their skills to handle individual challenges (Cai and Mountford, 2022) and resistance toward incorporating these institutional logics.This suggests that organizations and individuals employ non-standardized, diverse responses based on their specific needs (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006).
The findings of this study also expand the intrapreneurship literature by indicating a certain degree of hybridization or pluralization of the logics at the field, organizational, and individual levels during the intrapreneurial processes (Heinze and Weber, 2016).For example, the findings confirm that university faculties and programs compete for courses and students, suggesting that the implementation of resource allocation based on the inflow and outflow of students (to support their and improve education quality) has instigated new internal competition (Kivistö et al., 2019) at the organizational level that obstructs the intrapreneur's aspiration and activities to develop new education programs to meet students' needs.Thus, while intrapreneurs try to align and implement field level logic, the competition logic in the organization hinders their initiative.To navigate this competitive logic at the organizational level, intrapreneurs harness their internal networks and organizational power structures.By highlighting the different institutional logics present in academic intrapreneurial initiatives, this study explicates how the emergence of intrapreneurial logic can be interpreted as a response to the academic logic, revealing that these two logics become intertwined and perpetuated in organizational and individual levels to support intrapreneurial processes.In some cases, it reacts to institutional complexity and in others, it creates such complexity.The study underscores how the investigated intrapreneurs, engaged in teaching, research, and intrapreneurial activities, grapple with substantial demands and conflicts related to the optimal allocation and organization of their work time.This finding resonates with not only the observations of Angervall and Beach (2018) about the experiences of female teachers and researchers in Sweden but also the arguments of Gale (2011) regarding UK university teachers dealing with fragmented work and institutional situations.Intrapreneurs solve such demands and conflicts by engaging in logic hybridization or pluralization at the individual level, a strategy that can be employed across different academic contexts and roles (Heinze and Weber, 2016).
This study addresses the individual level and experiences of academic intrapreneurs, responding to calls for research on individual experiences and behaviors in initiating intrapreneurial projects within academic settings (Siegel and Wright, 2015), which reveals intrapreneurs' institutional logic in action.While prior studies show that control perception affects knowledge transfer and value creation (Burkholder and Hulsink, 2022) this study emphasizes the need for persistence and adaptability amid unpredictable processes and personal challenges, such as time management and conflicting roles and identities, which can lead to inflexibility and stereotypes, negatively impacting intrapreneurial efforts (Sandberg and Aarikka-Stenroos, 2014), indicating conflicting logic.Numerous studies have shown that successful intrapreneurs are risk takers, autonomous, and driven by their vision (Sinha et al., 2020) in the unpredictable problem-solving process, which is also reflected by this study.Furthermore, we posit that personal experiences and skills shape the ability to formulate ideas, create profitable opportunities, and successfully launch initiatives.Key behaviors, such as motivation, opportunity recognition, resource utilization, and problem solving, form an integral part of constructing intrapreneurial logic, navigating multiple logics, and fostering logic hybridization.
The findings associated with obstacles in intrapreneurial processes illuminate the presence of fragmented institutional logics (Dunn and Jones, 2010) and institutional complexity at the academic, field, and organizational levels; ranging from the academic logic exemplified by expected research and publication performance metrics for career advancement and developing and sustaining teaching quality (Guarini et al., 2020;Hammarfelt et al., 2016), to finding ways to implement an intrapreneurial logic, including billing one's time, maintaining contacts and networks, and competing over projects and programs.While existing studies reveal that such competing field-and organizational-level logics can lead to control issues (Berggren and Karabag, 2019) and governance structure complications (Kivleniece and Quelin, 2012) in academia, impeding the success of intrapreneurial and innovative activities in media (Belair-Gagnon et al., 2020), this study demonstrates that academic intrapreneurs at the individual level begin managing their time and reframing their activities to match field-and organizational-level logics, pointing to the emergence of a new supra-logic, in which intrapreneurial logic is implemented to overcome a dominant logic such as teaching or research, or multiple logics are combined into one value system through "hybridization" (York et al., 2016).Intrapreneurs employ this strategy to stabilize their institutional complexity and navigate their intrapreneurial context (Reay and Hinings, 2009).This aligns with the findings of Radu-Lefebvre et al. ( 2021) on the unification and coexistence of different academic roles.This study identifies the attitudes of management, colleagues, and external collaborators as crucial factors fostering and sustaining intrapreneurial logic, building further on the findings of Kodeih and Greenwood (2014) and Johnson et al. (2017).Regardless of positive or negative attitudes, intrapreneurs persist in their ideas and activities, even when discouraged due to associated risks, uncertain outcomes, or a strong misalignment with prevailing academic logic.Managers and colleagues can exert a positive influence, as shown by Johnson et al. (2017), acting as role models incorporating the intrapreneurial logic.However, negative attitudes do not have the same effect; their seemingly negligible role and the pressure of academic logic can be explained either by their limited impact on intrapreneurial activities (Neessen et al., 2019) or by the intrapreneurs' hyper-motivation to develop, execute, and implement their ideas.During this process, intrapreneurs utilize the power structure within or outside their organization, mobilize internal and external resources, and actively develop new capabilities to defend their intrapreneurial idea and overcome academic logic manifested through negative attitudes (Heinze and Weber, 2016).Thus, having a network, being knowledgeable about an academic organization's operations (e.g., based on managerial experience), and having the legitimacy and credibility that comes with academic titles suggest that professors would be ultimate academic intrapreneurs with experience and maturity in terms of coping with institutional complexity.However, according to our findings this is true in many cases but not all, suggesting that other aspects both on individual and organizational levels influence how an intrapreneur is able to navigate the multiple logics, because even junior intrapreneurs can succeed in implementing intrapreneurial initiatives.
The findings reveal that intrapreneurs benefit from the freedom from organizational intrusion (Reay and Hinings, 2009) and from the stability and security offered by the academic organization (Oostervink et al., 2016).Being part of the public service system might foster the inception of intrapreneurial activities.It can be argued that academic employees use the autonomy and stability of academia to establish a new institutional intrapreneurial logic (Riaz and Qureshi, 2017) in response to the complex and fragmented institutional field (Oostervink et al., 2016).Their efforts to bill their time, launch larger research programs, and develop new educational programs suggest the creation or maintenance of intrapreneurial logic to combat both internal and external competition over resources (Kivistö et al., 2019;Pinheiro et al., 2019) and address unsupportive collegial approaches linked to multiple logics at the field level.
Finally, our study highlights the duality of intrapreneurial logic, acting in response to the dominant academic logic or as a coping strategy for individuals.Either way, the two logics become intertwined and perpetuated through academic intrapreneurial processes.Thus, becoming a truly competitive, global "intrapreneurial university" necessitates not only organizational conditions and support for individuals to become intrapreneurs but also highly skilled academic employees who can navigate the multiple logics at play.The findings reveals that intrapreneurs actively leverage universities' effort to integrate intrapreneurial logic or hybridization efforts into their work processes (mesolevel logic arrangements) (Martin et al., 2017), to reduce the power of multiple logics and push their ideas forward.

Managerial and policy implications
This article reveals that academic organizational conditions can support new intrapreneurial initiatives, while simultaneously imposing barriers.Individual capabilities are essential to overcome challenges in intrapreneurial processes and manage multiple logics, and more can be done by policymakers and managers in academia to support intrapreneurship.
First, universities need to accept and acknowledge the presence of multiple logics and consider the implications of intrapreneurial logic in a system that was designed with academic logic in mind, such as the current system, which is not as encouraging of intrapreneurial initiatives as it could be.From policymakers' perspective, it may be rational to promote academic logic (scientific production), but solely focusing on this may limit or discourage intrapreneurs from initiating other activities and fail to support individuals in logic hybridization.Thus, we encourage additional field-and organizational-level discussions and active policy development by policymakers to balance and reward various institutional roles, activities, and logics.From a managerial perspective, universities should stimulate intrapreneurial processes at the individual and organizational levels by developing a culture and environment that encourages academics to engage in intrapreneurship and offering support to them in balancing academic and intrapreneurial logic.This may involve providing low-risk opportunities for experimentation and collaboration with society.
Second, besides obtaining a better understanding of intrapreneurial logic, this article reveals that academic working conditions could be further developed to better support intrapreneurial behavior in academia, underscoring the need for better working conditions, including the allocation of time and resources.Policymakers must consider the individual-level challenges that intrapreneurial activities create and aim to eliminate organizational obstacles.From a managerial perspective, acting as role models and forging pathways integrating logics in practice is essential.Building on the findings Guerrero et al. (2021), we concur that universities should recognize both academic performance and intrapreneurial activities.To fully embrace intrapreneurship, universities should foster a conducive internal culture and structures to encourage intrapreneurial behavior through personal development dialogues, performance reviews, and career planning.We also observe that some organizations endeavor to legitimize intrapreneurial logic or hybridize multiple logics.Consequently, in line with the findings of Kodeih and Greenwood (2014) and Johnson et al. (2017), this study suggests not only training for intrapreneurs but also university leaders, managers, and administrators to ensure awareness of the institutional complexities and competing logics at play.
Third, recognizing the role of individuals, we must remember that intrapreneurs actively shape and influence their academic and organizational environments, acting as initiators and formulators of new logics, such as intrapreneurial logic.Their actions and behaviors form the micro-level foundation that initiates, sustains, and elaborates this new logic.The complex nature of intrapreneurial processes demands not only practical but also institutional skills for effective navigation.Policymakers need to consider how engagement in intrapreneurial activities such as through the "third mission," places additional demands on academics' skills and competences.This requires allocating time and funding for competence development and promoting network building, by supporting researcher mobility between universities and sectors to establish the necessary prerequisites for intrapreneurship.From a managerial perspective, offering training aimed at developing critical intrapreneurial skills at the university could help balance the core academic work of teaching and research with intrapreneurial initiatives.Equally important is clear backing from the organization in the form of a champion, coach, or mentor.Finally, implementing intrapreneurial training for academics through professional development courses, coaching, or mentoring could be valuable.
Finally, from policymakers' perspective, an example of neglecting the importance of intrapreneurship in academia is manifested in the European HEInnovate framework,4 a self-reflection tool for universities wanting to assess their innovative potential.Although it covers eight different dimensions from leadership and governance to organizational capacity and entrepreneurial training, intrapreneurship is notably missing as a component constituting an innovative HEI.Thus, including dimensions assessing how universities work to support intrapreneurship is essential to truly reflect a university's innovative potential.

Conclusions and agenda for future research
This article examines the intricacies of intrapreneurial processes in academic contexts, revealing that intrapreneurs navigate logics at the individual, organizational, and field levels.This navigation intersects with three key aspects at the organizational level-building resistance toward the inclusion of intrapreneurial logic, promoting logic hybridization, and legitimizing the integration of intrapreneurial logic.At the individual level, the process involves developing capabilities to implement intrapreneurial logic and dealing with challenges to encourage the hybridization of logics.These elements are unified in an integrative framework of intrapreneurial processes in academic contexts.This study also sheds light on the institutional complexity intrapreneurs encounter when traditional academic and teaching logics either complement or contrast with emerging intrapreneurial logics.To effectively embrace these intrapreneurial logics, enhance strategic capability, and foster innovation, intrapreneurs and universities cultivate their intrapreneurial orientation.
This study examines cases successfully implemented by intrapreneurs, excluding "failed" or "aborted" initiatives.Hence, all employees appear to have coped effectively with the complexity of managing multiple logics.Future research could explore intrapreneurial failures potentially linked to conflicting logics within the academic environment (Brenk et al., 2019).Furthermore, our data do not permit us to propose that certain characteristics bear more significance at specific stages.Subsequent research could delve into the temporal aspects of these characteristics, such as the evolution or changing importance of support over time.Due to the qualitative nature of this study, we cannot assess whether different types of academic intrapreneurs effectively or ineffectively navigate multiple logics at individual, organizational, and field levels, which future quantitative studies may be able to do.
(continued ) There is like an interaction that is unique.We didn't just have the dance method, but this should have a close connection to the research all the time, I think and then.I am challenged in such a good way, in such a stimulating and developing way that I think my dream scenario is to just continue working with research, innovation and dance parents in parallel."Diana, Case L at NascentUni."You are understaffed, and you make sure that you have so few people that it barely makes ends meet, so every project money that comes in is a problem because someone has to stop teaching.It was actually easier before, because then it wasn't quite as tight as it is now.But now everything is set up until the last teaching hours and therefore there is like no gap and therefore it will be difficult to get it together."John, Case M at NascentUni.

Building up rivalry between different departments/ divisions
Rivalry, jealousy, lack of communication between different divisions "The more universities involved, the more complicated to share the money."John, Case M at NascentUni."It is a culture between different environments, and you must first feel in the group that you belong to the group before you can actually come up with stupid suggestions or stupid questions.There are many who compete with each other.You are a little mean to each other.Many become isolated because they don't fit into different environments, and you don't take care of each other all the time.Mary, Case J at NascentUni."We had said that we would educate a large number of industrial PhDs within the normal study pace, which is five years.And everyone [referring to senior colleagues] thought that this was just crap -stupid, right?[…] This was the last monopoly for the old universities, graduate education, and the younger universities was not allowed to do it -this was also considered a threat.[…] This initiative was primarily meant to engage younger researchers, not the ones who were already professors and had a lot of senior work to do.This was going to be an environment where young researchers could get a head start in terms of publishing and supervision of PhD students.And that did not make it any more popular […] There were even more sour faces then" Ian, Case B at TechUni.

Promoting hybridization of logics Building a flexible environment open to new ideas "Open-minded" academic setting e.g., open to innovation
"There is a completely different "window" for these questions now (than it did before, compare to how it was in 2016

Providing managerial support
Manager investing time, money, and reputation to support initiative "My manger was "brave" to let me work on something unknown."Mary, case J at NascentUni."After about two-three years, TechUni started to think this was good.Our PhD students were progressing.We also kept undercover statistics on our publications, which we presented to the presidents, where we completely outperformed [partner university] and equivalent departments at TechUni in terms of number of publications per researcher, so gradually (continued on next page) J. Engzell et

Continuous development and redesign of the initiative
Iterations, experimentation, feedback loops "After 3 years we had the first big crisis that resulted in a major change for the students starting the year after.Instead of imploding, we said 'let's go all the way and make [TechUni] cross-disciplinary.[…] The second one came shortly thereafter when one of our investors came to us and said 'we see a problem in that the students put their hearts into this but the idea provider does not have the same commitment.'We started building what became our own incubator with the help of our investor.Then a few years later, we had another crisis when I left my position as vice-dean.Suddenly people started asking a lot of questions about what was going on in the initiative and it became clear that I had somehow sheltered this and there were too many irregularities.Then the final crisis came when we realized that our [governmental]  "So, the difficulties were primarily the hiring processes of Swedish universities.There's a lot of talk about internationalization and collaboration, but then when we actually do it it's not so easy.I managed to make it work.So originally, we didn't have the Institute in essence as a partner, but we brought them in because it meant we could hire our other participants through it, instead of through our university".Karen, at Case Q at OldUni."The idea itself is anchored with our strategic industrial partners.And we get a lot of appreciation for this project from out industrial partners so this collaboration has worked out very well I have to say."Peter, Case E at TechUni "There are a lot of life science and Medtech startups in [Old Uni] as well and of course, very good scientists.At our university lab, we are 26 partners from academia, health care and industry.Among them we have 14 partners including larger and small companies both from Medtech and non-Medtech industries.We also have the national agency that takes care of our industry."Miriam, Case R at OldUni.Securing sufficient financial/economic support External funding, formal financial support from top management "After about two years, we had everything signed, except from the presidents at the universities [involved].But we had to place the money somewhere […] The deputy presidents felt that we were a pain in the ass.I knew they were a bit upset from when we signed the agreement, first with the funding agency, then with four CTOs of major industrial companies who had already agreed to support it financially.And then there were two blank rows left.I went up to the President [of partner university], and he just laughed and thought this was exciting but that 'you'll face hell because half the faculty will be pissed off and give you a real hard time.'"Ian, Base B at TechUni."We got access to resources, such as renting a car for free from the university."Aiyla, Case G at NascentUni."Getting this research program was actually surprisingly quick.This funder has been my most important sponsor, I got projects from them several times."Karin, Case Q at OldUni.

Obtaining media recognition and branding
Media recognition, branding both internal and external outside the university "We have used external consultants, [name], we pay him as an advisor.He has also been involved in discussions with the president and it has been very important to have an external person giving advice, then it is not us who just come with "opinions".Sarah, case C at TechUni."Initially [case B] was just about collaborative research and a pretty large initiative as we got more and more R&D managers from industrial partners to sign up like AutomotiveCo, MobilTech, CommunicateInc and TopPharma.
[…] When we were in the final rounds of obtaining the external funding, the foundation suddenly said 'hold on -we have a problem.We would very much like to support this because of your strong partnership with industry.But you also need to have a graduate program.As we were opportunity-oriented, we said we could probably do it, but we doubled the price tag.And the application went from 50 to 100 million."Ian, Case B at TechUni."The media has been an important "trigger" for many researchers.To be recognized for their work."Mary, Case J, NascentUni.
(continued on next page) J. Engzell et al. (continued ) Aggregate themes of responses to multiple logics in the intrapreneurial process 2nd order categories (1st order (open) codes in italics) Illustrative quotes

Developing individual capabilities to enact intrapreneurial logic
Drawing on personal motivation Self-confidence, drive, enthusiasm "I have self-confidence and I do not care what others say."Mary, Case J at Nascent Uni."Someone told me that I'm fearless and I had never thought about that, but I think that is something you actually need to be.I always expressed it as you need to be a bit crazy to actually spend so much time on that.But I think that this may be fearless is the better word for it.So, you shouldn't be worried about failing".Karen, Case Q at OldUni.Recognizing and seizing window of opportunity Mindful of opportunities, discovering new improvements "I had been thinking about these things, but there was no place to get any action going.But then this opportunity from the Foundation came along."Sarah, Case C at TechUni."I was approached by two colleagues whom I have known for a very long time.… And they had an idea for a large research project, and they wanted us to apply for EU funding.We had so much to do, and we missed the deadline.And then we tired this program instead."Karen, Case Q at OldUni."I should perhaps mention a bit of history because the sector that we work in has been quite questioned here in Sweden for many years of decades.So last 30 years we had had a rather good and confident collaboration with industry, and it was quite mature.So, it was easy to set up the collaboration but difficult to write the application."Susan, Case P at OldUni."I think I go there because no one else is there.Then I have to go there and get it.[…] Once I have realized these ideas or achieved what I wanted, then it is no longer of any interest to me, then it is time to switch.When it is time to switch from this creative, strategic work to operational excellence that is my que to leave".Janet, Case D at TechUni.Utilizing and mobilizing resources, e.g., building networks Previous experience of working with external partners, knowledgeable about "how to get things done", integrating new partners along the way "I was approached by two colleagues whom I have known for a very long time.… And they had an idea for a large research project, and they wanted us to apply for EU funding.We had so much to do, and we missed the deadline.And then we tried this program instead".Karen, Case Q at Old Uni."We have very good collaborations with the dominant international and national agencies.When I started my career, I also built good collaborations with the leading researchers and Swedish universities.Plus, we have been conducting several joint programs with national and international industrial actors.Thus, we have had a rather good and confident collaboration with all these important actors, and in my case, it was quite mature when the funding agency issued a call two years ago."Susan, Case P at Old Uni.

Developing idea
Fun to develop new and uncertain things because there are no rules.
"I found an initiation fund for developing this idea.So, I used that for the application phase and for coordinating the application.So, I found a consultancy firm, and we worked together to write the proposal, together with my colleagues in Europe.And then we filed the application."Jenny, Case N at OldUni."There was a reason I wanted to write this book [initiative F] and that was that I find it so tedious to write research articles because you have to accommodate a certain style and language which I felt completely erased the personality of the author.In the book I was able to decide by myself what was considered interesting or good to know and frame things with timelines and historical perspectives and such."Belinda, Case F at TechUni.

Solving problem solving and managing crisis
Not speaking the same language within the project, legal issues and contracts, difficulty in hiring international staff "I remember that in the beginning HR was a bit anti -they were like 'you come here and do something that we do, and then you have to be better than us'.[…] Back then, I never thought I would have to work with management and the central organization, because that's where I get stuck now.We basically had the management with us at the beginning, but we also learned a lot afterwards, we didn't know anything about what would work.I think that I actually thought, a little naively, that we could change [Tech Uni]."Sarah, Case C at TechUni."The three of us got an okay for the project in January 2020.But COVID came, and we could not start the project for several months.So, when it started in the beginning, we shared the responsibility for that chapter, which I used in my other, similar project.However, the text came around, and it was like, okay, this is how we write this or that.I found myself commenting on their text.Since this was my project, my baby, I was the one who initiated and invited the others.I felt like, after a while, I had to take charge of the texts.I suggested they provide the findings, then, I rewrite.This is what I had to be responsible for from the very beginning.Another bump was that we decided early on that we would have three empirical examples that go fairly deep to explain what we are talking about here.And the third one, in the end, became different, but that was not obvious from the very beginning.We were talking about other studies, but we didn't manage to do that.So, we had to find new one which took a lot of time."Harry, Case S at OldUni.
(continued on next page) J. Engzell et  "From what I know, I would never have gotten started with the book [initiative F] if I had waited until I had a high-level position in academia, waiting for the right opportunity to appear, because I mean -it took a lot of energy.I had it then at that time, but now that I am over 40, my energy is much lower -I have noticed I really need to turn off and rest.It didn't use to be like that.But maybe that is also a bit gender-coded?I meanwhat you are supposed to spend your time and energy on?"Belinda, Case F at TechUni."It is all about defending yourself and having a position where you are able to be an opponent and give critique to others."Mary, Case J at NascentUni."I have 3 hats right now: I continue to work with research, supervision work, innovation to inspire and support other research ideas to become implemented and the concept I have started".Diana, Case L at NascentUni.

Managing risks
Risks associated with seeking opportunities and take risks for a new initiative, working with something with uncertain outcomes "Someone told me that I'm fearless and I had never thought about that, but I think that is something you actually need to be.I always expressed it as you need to be a bit crazy to actually spend so much time on that.But I think that this may be fearless is the better word for it.So, you shouldn't be worried about failing."Karen, Case Q at Old Uni."I cannot help myself.I struggle with the other things, but this I cannot resist … It is so crazy challenging and fun and I think many people who are like this are attracted to it" Janet, Case D at TechUni."I think that the challenges emerged from when we got the decision that we had to succeed with the negotiation.And that was only on me, who conducted the negotiation.So, there was a lot of discussions and changes of things ….And then, in parallel, we started the consortium agreement, which is not something that the EU has a say on.So, I got help from our lawyers at my university to adapt the EU's template to fit our project, and I think we're now at version five, and it's still not signed.It took a lot of time.But we're getting there.One problem was that we have a non-EU member partner.The template for the agreement was not suited for them.So, we had to rewrite the agreement several times to fit." Jenny, Case N at OldUni.

Fig. 1 .
Fig. 1.Outlining responses to multiple logics in intrapreneurial processes in academia (Source: authors' own data collection and analysis).

Table 1
Details about the intrapreneurial initiatives.radically new master's program following a new pedagogical, hands-on approach, which began as bottom-up skunk work beyond the traditional work roles of a teacher/researcher.
Creation of a textbook for high school students within a specific subject, conducted during spare time and beyond the traditional work roles of a teacher.2010-201314NResearchOldUniAninternationalcollaborativeresearchinitiativeunder the EU Horizon framework, coupled with a competence center, serving as a dedicated platform for devising solutions to meet future energy demands.2022-ongoing15OEducationandOrganizationalOldUni Several bachelor's and master's programs comprising mixed management and engineering sciences offered by the engineering and natural science faculty, which led a growth of the division from 2 to 55 faculty employees.2009-202016PResearchOld Uni A national research center, serving as a collaborative platform where social and engineering science researchers from diverse Swedish universities and major corporations converge to address one of society's major challenges: energy.An extensive collaborative research program and competence hub, bringing together partners from 25 diverse organizations and firms to pioneer breakthrough technologies for the health sector.

Table 2
Overview of the interviewees.
[…] It becomes a minus, so to say.What do I put on my CV from [case D]?The money that I brought in, and nothing else.Because the other things don't have any value.

Table 3
Data structure.

Table 3
that we don't even discuss the problem, because then you could say no.But at[TechUni]we say that we want this [kind of initiatives], but then we don't manage to … Then we shouldn't encourage it so that it becomes a problem that we don't have more of it!If this was the case, I might not have come here in the first place, now would I? If someone had told me that 'if you come here, you are in X years expected to publish in these top-quality journals?Then I would not have come here at all." Janet, Case D at TechUni."What is measured in the university world is not whether you have made something useful or commercialized something.That is if you have a lot of citations.The expectations on this project was too high from the beginning."Carl,CaseK at NascentUni.Allocating insufficient time for different tasksDistribution between tasks, e.g., teaching and research "If someone had interfered more in how I spend my time and decided for me that no, you are not making the right priorities for becoming a professor, then I know what would have been the first thing to go.It would have been these kinds of passion projects.[ …] But I think that regardless of what I would have done, it would have taken a lot of time, and right now this openness towards taking on small speaking engagements and creative things are also related to that I am not running around all of Europe attending consortia meetings and 'representing'.[ …] I think I would have like worked in academia even less if I had gotten that advice [to focus on my career]."Belinda, Case F at TechUni."Sometimes I think that maybe I should do this full time because there is a need for it.But don't want to lose the research.Always have it as a "leg".
Being in the academic environment is positive since it makes the idea stable and thoughtfully evaluated and that's what makes it also implementable.Work evidence-based."Diana, Case L at Nascent Uni.
al. interested and positive."Ian, Case B at TechUni."I was told it was a suicide mission.[…] I was told" good luck" in an ironic way.[…] But I was triggered by this.I felt it did not really matter that I got these comments.I didn't care."Mary, Case J at NascentUni.

partners and collaborators outside of academia
funding was not perpetual but expired in 2018."Steve, case A at TechUni."Experiment and try.What's the worst that could happen?!" Marcus, Case H at NascentUni.Some colleagues like [name] was cheering us on.This was just around the time of his own initiative, and he was generally positive towards doing anything different."Ian, Case B at TechUni." I did not make a big fuss about it, expect when it became time to publish, and then several of my colleagues were really nice and happy for me and said 'congratulations!' But no one really had any insight into the writing process other than my co-author."Belinda, Case F at TechUni Engaging al. Working with a new initiative outside the ordinary working tasks, work with the idea without anyone knowing about it, work with this as "competence time" or on spare time "I am not sure how much I work.I have the kids every other week, making it easier to slow down the work … I mean, once you have kids, you also become very efficient because you have a limited amount of time and then you need to take care of the kids."Miriam, case R at OldUni."I have been working on this on the side."Donna, Case I at NascentUni.Managing an established position and professional identity Mixed expectations related to established work position, professional identity, conflicting aspirations.