Public-sector Entrepreneurship is among the most debated areas of entrepreneurial research; thus, there are varied scholarly perceptions on what constitutes PSE (Olumeko 2022). Kearney et al. (2009) have defined the concept as innovative, risk-taking and proactive practices within public organisations aimed at improving efficiency and service delivery. It is the promotion of collaboration, innovation and learning in the public sector to address complex challenges and create public value (Vivona et al. 2024). Hyter et al. (2018:676) conceptualise PSE based on: actions that are innovative, that transform a status quo, social and economic environment, and that are characterised by uncertainty. Dhliwayo (2017), however, proposed three dimensions of PSE, namely, economic facilitation and regulation, the civil-political service agent and commercial market participation. Ojubele et al. (2022) found that PSE is essentially about adopting an entrepreneurial mindset within the public sector. This involves actively innovating to identify and capitalise on new opportunities and improving existing or developing new public services. The PSE is defined by organisational innovativeness, risk-taking, proactiveness, autonomy, competitive aggressiveness, and public service motivation (Ahmed et al. 2024). It also requires a supportive policy environment, entrepreneurial leadership and adaptive organisational structures (Kearney et al. 2009). Results from a study conducted by Olumekor (2022) confirmed that PSE is characterised by innovation, entrepreneurship, sustainability and entrepreneurial orientation. These aspects are essential in enhancing organisational performance, where they are applied diligently in public institutions. As the public sector has often been characterised by bureaucratic inertia, inefficiencies and organisational redundancies, collating best practices from the private sector and applying them in the public sector has become a viable strategy for positive organisational transformation (Funko, Vlačić & Dabić 2023). Entrepreneurial agents in the public sector, as proposed by Zerbinati and Souitaris (2005:1), include a professional politician, spin-off creator, business entrepreneur in politics, career-driven public officer, and politically ambitious public officer. The agents, therefore, serve as a vital conduit through which organisational transformation for entrepreneurial practice can be realised in public institutions, guaranteeing competitiveness, growth and sustainability.

The adoption of PSE by managers in the public sector positively influences the ability to both achieve organisational goals and enact a democratic culture where employees are consulted and involved in open decision-making (Vivona 2023). Kearney and Maynhardt (2016) concur that PSE offers promising benefits for organisations, communities and stakeholders. By applying successful PSE practices in the public sector, managers can transform their organisations and enhance societal function. However, the transformative effect of entrepreneurial behaviour, characterised by risk-taking, innovativeness and proactiveness, is affected by the nature of the organisation and intra-organisational barriers (Kim 2010; Tremml 2020). This signals a need for adjusting organisational structures and strategies to drive entrepreneurial activities and culture through opportunity-driven management (Kim 2010). Ahmed et al. (2024) recommended that public institutions should adopt PSE practices as a strategy to alleviate developmental challenges, as PSE results in the provision of a clear vision through efficient resource management, recruitment of qualified personnel and maximum utilisation of resources. The adoption of PSE strategies in parastatals has the potential to drive organisational innovation performance, which results in overall positive institutional growth (Khirfan & Al Khasawneh 2023). This is consistent with findings from a study conducted by Iliashenko et al. (2023), which established a correlation between innovativeness and the entrepreneurial determinants of self-awareness, knowledge-enabling and entrepreneurial orientation. The incorporation of key PSE tenets such as opportunity seeking, corporate innovation, risk-taking, strategic renewal and policy innovation radically revolutionises organisational performance in the public sector.

Public-sector entrepreneurship is considered as an alternative strategy for addressing governance challenges in public institutions, especially in developing countries (Gaber & Fahim 2018). The scholars found a positive correlation between entrepreneurial activities and organisational performance. Both PSE and entrepreneurial leadership have a direct correlational effect on organisational performance, and therefore, these strategies can serve as a panacea for the myriad of challenges faced by the public sector (Karnsomdae 2023; Moon et al. 2020; Vivona et al. 2024). With a focus on the health sector, Banda and Kazonga (2018) found that the key dimensions of PSE, namely innovation, proactiveness and risk-taking, are positively associated with organisations’ performance, and this relationship is moderated by internal organisational factors such as a supportive organisational structure and resource availability. Moghaddam, Khorakian and Maharati (2015) identified an association between two variables: entrepreneurial behaviour and entrepreneurial management, and the performance of public-sector institutions. Thus, adopting PSE entrepreneurial practices helps prompt organisational success in the public sector, although this is mediated by factors such as organisational structure and resource availability. Ultimately, there is a consensus among scholars that PSE improves organisational performance, leading to public satisfaction (Alyammahi 2024; Mwakio et al. 2022).

Public-sector entrepreneurship has gained traction as a strategy to revitalise bureaucratic institutions and enhance public value. Numerous models have attempted to capture the dynamics of entrepreneurship within the public domain; however, many are either theoretical extrapolations from private-sector frameworks or insufficiently contextualised for developing countries. Most notably, Kearney, Hisrich and Roche (2008) and Covin and Slevin (1991) offer foundational models that emphasise innovativeness, risk-taking and proactiveness. While these contributions are valuable, they assume organisational stability, strong institutional capacity, and resource abundance—conditions often lacking in fragile or under-resourced African SOEs.

Schumpeter’s (1934) innovation theory positions entrepreneurship as a catalyst for creative destruction, yet in public institutions plagued by inertia and patronage systems, the pathways to transformation are less linear. As such, transplanting these models wholesale into contexts such as Zimbabwe leads to theoretical and practical misalignment. Even more contemporary contributions, such as those by Zerbinati and Souitaris (2005) and Liddle and McElwee (2019), tend to under-theorise the impact of governance fragility, regulatory incoherence, and elite capture.

Critically, frameworks such as these often treat innovation and risk-taking as internally driven, neglecting the external dependencies that define many African parastatals – donor funding, political mandates and public distrust. The UNDP’s Africa Governance Report (2022) identifies policy inconsistency, siloed bureaucracies and weak accountability structures as central barriers to institutional innovation across the continent. Likewise, the OECD’s Fostering Innovation in the Public Sector (2021) Report emphasises the need for adaptive, participatory and mission-oriented innovation frameworks – factors that remain underexplored in dominant PSE models.

Frameworks developed for private-sector settings are also often incompatible with public objectives. Whereas private firms prioritise profit maximisation, PSE is driven by public value creation, political accountability and multistakeholder engagement (Osborne 2006). This distinction necessitates frameworks tailored to bureaucratic environments, where constraints are not merely market-driven but deeply institutional and political.

Models or frameworks are therefore critical for operationalising PSE in real-world contexts, particularly in African settings where bureaucratic rigidity, limited fiscal space and capacity deficits prevail. Ojugbele, Ogunlela and Tengeh (2022) rightly notes that while entrepreneurial thinking can be transformative, frameworks designed for public institutions must be adapted to their specific constraints. Kearney et al. (2008) advocate for tailored models that address the organisational-level complexities of PSE, recognising that effectiveness stems from structural, not just individual, capabilities.

Building on this, Lorenz et al. (2024) propose integrated public–private frameworks that offer a shared language while respecting divergent goals and stakeholder values. Yeazdanshenas (2014) presents a more comprehensive framework for organisational entrepreneurship that underscores the role of top management in initiating innovation-oriented processes. However, this model also acknowledges the mediating role of both internal (culture, capacity) and external (policy, funding) influences on implementation.

Syam et al. (2021) add that entrepreneurial effectiveness in the public sector hinges on empowering change agents – public managers capable of adaptation, learning and collaborative governance. This idea is echoed in Dunleavy et al.’s (2011) work, which stresses the non-linear nature of innovation in public organisations. Innovations often emerge from experimentation, iteration and co-creation, rather than through rigid planning cycles. Therefore, frameworks must accommodate ambiguity, policy failure and emergent strategies.

This study contributes to this evolving discourse by offering a context-sensitive conceptual model rooted in empirical data from Zimbabwean parastatals. Unlike most extant models, the proposed framework captures the intersection of policy reform, corporate innovation, risk-taking, opportunity-seeking, and strategic renewal, each mapped to the constraints and affordances of African SOEs. It shifts the focus from theoretical abstraction to contextual operationalisation, bridging the gap between normative ideals and implementation realities in the Global South.

Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the University of the Western Cape Humanities and Social Science Research Ethics Committee (No. HS23/10/47).

Policy innovation plays a critical role in shaping the entrepreneurial landscape within public-sector institutions by fostering regulatory frameworks that support efficiency and adaptability. The study finds that policy entrepreneurs significantly influence legislative and executive decision-making, ensuring that public institutions remain responsive to emerging challenges. However, it notes that public-sector innovation policies are still underdeveloped compared to those in the private sector, where incentives and resource allocation are more structured. The NRZ and the TSCZ have utilised policy action plans to structure their strategic renewal initiatives, ensuring that infrastructural development, operational efficiency and customer service enhancements are prioritised. One participant from NRZ noted, ‘Our strategic renewal is governed by a comprehensive action plan that includes infrastructure development, operational efficiency, and customer service improvements’ – a view echoed by several senior managers and validated in internal strategy documents. This sentiment aligns with the policy innovation theme identified in the coding process.

Corporate innovation refers to the internal efforts within public institutions to develop new products, processes or business models that enhance service delivery and efficiency. The study reveals that both NRZ and TSCZ have embraced corporate innovation through administrative process automation, strategic collaborations and expansion into new service areas. However, bureaucratic inertia has often hindered the pace of innovation, necessitating streamlined decision-making processes. A notable example is the establishment of innovation hubs aimed at fostering continuous improvement. While these hubs carry risks such as resource misallocation and project failures, their successful initiatives have led to process optimisations and enhanced service delivery. As one middle manager at TSCZ observed:

This quote reflects a broader view expressed by 10 of 23 participants and was linked to the corporate innovation code in the thematic framework.

Risk-taking is an essential component of PSE, allowing institutions to embrace uncertainty in pursuit of improved performance. The study finds that both NRZ and TSCZ have taken strategic risks by exploring new markets and adopting innovative business models. One of the most notable risks has been the adoption of public–private partnerships (PPPs), which, despite initial challenges, have led to service delivery improvements. Furthermore, risk-taking has extended to direct engagement with customers, allowing organisations to tailor their services more effectively. A frontline officer from TSCZ shared, ‘Engaging with customers to understand their needs and preferences has been a strategic risk … but the increased customer satisfaction validated this approach’. This sentiment, echoed by eight respondents, emerged consistently in the ‘strategic risk-taking’ theme, underscoring a shift in institutional culture towards responsiveness.

Opportunity-seeking behaviour is crucial for public-sector organisations striving to improve efficiency and expand service delivery. The study highlights that NRZ has capitalised on alternative revenue streams, including tourism-themed trains, which provide additional income while promoting the country’s cultural heritage. Similarly, TSCZ has introduced smart traffic monitoring systems aimed at enhancing road safety through data-driven enforcement strategies. In addition, collaborations with international bodies have been instrumental in identifying new growth opportunities. One participant from NRZ remarked, ‘We’ve been exploring partnerships with global rail bodies to modernize our infrastructure and improve efficiency’. This was reinforced by interview data from both executives and middle managers, with 9 of 23 participants citing international collaboration as a growth opportunity within the ‘opportunity-seeking’ code.

Strategic renewal is the process through which organisations continuously evolve their strategies, structures and capabilities to remain competitive in changing environments. The study finds that both NRZ and TSCZ have implemented monitoring and evaluation (M&E) frameworks to track the effectiveness of their strategic initiatives. This ensures that adjustments are made in response to performance metrics, leading to a more adaptive approach to management. One of the key strategies employed is the cascading of high-level strategic plans into department-specific objectives, ensuring alignment across various levels of the organisation. A TSCZ manager stated, ‘The strategic plan is broken down into actionable tasks for each department, ensuring alignment between top-level goals and operational execution’. This operationalisation of strategic renewal was also cited in M&E reports reviewed during document analysis and was raised by seven participants during interviews.

The findings of the study emphasise that policy innovation, corporate innovation, risk-taking, opportunity-seeking, and strategic renewal are critical components of PSE that can significantly enhance the performance of Zimbabwean parastatals. By adopting these entrepreneurial approaches, NRZ and TSCZ can overcome existing challenges and improve efficiency, service delivery and financial sustainability.

The Public-Sector Entrepreneurship Model developed in this study demonstrates how entrepreneurial strategies drive organisational growth, enhance service delivery and improve operational efficiency within Zimbabwean parastatals. The model was conceptualised based on empirical findings from the National Railways of Zimbabwe (NRZ) and the Traffic Safety Council of Zimbabwe (TSCZ) and is grounded in both literature and theoretical frameworks. While originally designed for these two cases, the model is adaptable for broader application across other SOEs.

The model integrates five key entrepreneurial dimensions, each of which plays a crucial role in improving public-sector performance:

Policy innovation is central to the proposed Public-Sector Entrepreneurship Model, as it focuses on adapting regulatory and operational frameworks to better suit evolving circumstances. The thesis emphasises that policy innovation enables institutions such as the NRZ and the TSCZ to overcome bureaucratic hurdles and implement strategic changes more swiftly. By aligning policies with organisational goals, these parastatals have been able to navigate regulatory complexities that often impede progress. For instance, policy reforms that encourage digital transformation and infrastructural investment have provided NRZ with the flexibility needed to modernise its operations and meet current market demands. This pillar highlights the importance of a dynamic policy environment that supports experimentation and learning, thereby fostering an entrepreneurial culture within the public sector.

Corporate innovation within the model is concerned with leveraging internal capabilities to create new products, services or processes that enhance operational efficiency and service quality. The study finds that NRZ and TSCZ have made significant strides through corporate innovation, such as adopting digital solutions and forging strategic collaborations that expand their operational capacity. For example, the deployment of administrative process automation and the creation of innovation hubs have enabled these parastatals to streamline workflows and introduce customer-centric services more effectively. However, the thesis also notes that bureaucratic inertia remains a considerable barrier, often stalling innovative initiatives. Thus, fostering a more agile corporate culture is deemed essential for these entities to fully embrace innovative practices and drive meaningful change.

Risk-taking is portrayed as a vital element of the entrepreneurship model, allowing parastatals to pursue opportunities despite uncertainties. The research indicates that NRZ and TSCZ have gradually adopted a more calculated approach to risk, particularly through PPPs that diversify their service offerings and reduce dependency on government funding. For instance, NRZ has engaged in partnerships to rejuvenate its rail infrastructure, while TSCZ has implemented customer feedback mechanisms to align its services with public expectations. This shift towards embracing calculated risks reflects a growing recognition of the need to innovate in response to a competitive and rapidly changing environment. However, overcoming a traditional aversion to risk, ingrained through years of conservative governance, remains a challenge that these institutions must continue to address.

Opportunity-seeking within this model revolves around actively identifying and exploiting new avenues for growth and development. Both NRZ and TSCZ have demonstrated a growing capability to recognise and act upon emerging opportunities, whether by exploring alternative revenue streams or adopting advanced technologies to improve service delivery. For instance, NRZ’s initiative to introduce tourism-themed trains has not only diversified its income but also promoted Zimbabwe’s cultural heritage. TSCZ’s adoption of smart traffic monitoring systems illustrates a strategic pivot towards leveraging technology to enhance road safety outcomes. This pillar underscores the significance of fostering an outward-looking perspective where collaboration with international bodies and local stakeholders becomes a critical strategy for uncovering and leveraging new possibilities.

Strategic renewal is essential for ensuring that these parastatals remain responsive to changes in their operational environments. The model advocates for continuous reassessment and realignment of strategies to maintain relevance and competitiveness. By employing M&E frameworks, NRZ and TSCZ have been able to gauge the effectiveness of their strategic initiatives and make informed adjustments. This approach has helped embed a culture of continuous improvement, allowing for a more responsive and adaptive management style. Furthermore, the cascading of strategic goals into actionable departmental objectives ensures that all levels of the organisation are aligned and working cohesively towards shared goals. This pillar highlights the importance of strategic agility in navigating the complex challenges faced by public-sector entities in Zimbabwe.

The conceptual model developed in this study has significant practical implications for SOEs in Zimbabwe and comparable developing contexts. To operationalise the five pillars of PSE—policy innovation, corporate innovation, risk-taking, opportunity-seeking and strategic renewal—SOEs require a structured implementation approach. This includes the development of diagnostic tools to assess institutional readiness, leadership development programmes focused on entrepreneurial and adaptive management, and innovation scorecards that guide performance measurement at departmental levels. Policymakers can support these efforts through enabling frameworks such as policy sandboxes, performance-based funding linked to entrepreneurial metrics, and the alignment of innovation indicators with national development strategies. Furthermore, partnerships between public institutions, academia, and the private sector can facilitate experimentation, digital transformation, and knowledge exchange. Establishing innovation hubs and peer-learning networks will foster continuous improvement, while donor support can be mobilised to fund pilot initiatives. Finally, integrated monitoring and evaluation systems – featuring both qualitative and quantitative metrics—are critical for tracking progress and enabling strategic renewal. These strategies together offer a roadmap for embedding entrepreneurial practices within the operational DNA of African public-sector institutions.