Why, how, what for? : motivations, actions and expectations in habitual entrepreneurship

Principal topic: Is habitual entrepreneurship different? Answering this is important to the field, however there is little systematic evidence, thus far. We addresses this by examining the role experience plays at three possible points of difference: motivations, actions and expectations; and by comparing those currently in the process of starting a business with those who have recent success in business creation. Firstly, we assess the balance of opportunity versus necessity motivation, internally versus externally stimulated decision processes and future growth aspirations. Literature suggests novices are more likely motivated to nascency out of necessity, and favour a manageable business size, while habitual entrepreneurs are more likely motivated by internally stimulated or idea driven processes. Secondly, we examine actions undertaken by successful experienced founders during gestation, contrasting ‘information collection’ and ‘opportunity definition’. Drawing on prior research we expect novices more likely to have enacted ‘information search’ while habitual entrepreneurs enact ‘opportunity definition’. Thirdly, we examine perceptions of venture success, where findings on overconfidence suggest that habitual entrepreneurs expect a higher chance of success for their ventures, while inexperience leads novices to underestimate the difficulty of entrepreneurial survival. Method: Empirical evidence to test these conjectures was drawn from a screened random sample of over 1100 Australian nascent and newly started business ventures. This information was collected during 2007/8 using a telephone survey. Results and Implications: Why do habitual entrepreneurs keep coming back? Findings suggest that while the pursuit of opportunity is shared by novice and experienced entrepreneur alike, consideration of repeat entrepreneurship may be motivated by a desire for growth. While idea driven motivations might not delineate a distinction during nascency, it does seem to be a factor contributing to the success of young firms. This warrants further research. How do habitual entrepreneurs behave differently? It seems they act to clearly define market opportunities as a matter of priority during venture gestation. What effect does entrepreneurial experience have on future expectations? Clearly a sense of realism is drawn over the difficulties that might be faced, and accords more circumspect judgements of venture survival. This finding informs practitioners considering entrepreneurship for the first time.

The importance of gestation process dynamics

Principal Topic In this paper we seek to highlight the important intermediate role that the gestation process plays in entrepreneurship by examining its key antecedents and its consequences for new venture emergence. In doing so we take a behavioural perspective and argue that it is not only what a nascent venture is, but what it does (Katz & Gartner, 1988; Shane & Delmar, 2004; Reynolds, 2007) and when it does it during start-up (Reynolds & Miller, 1992; Lichtenstein, Carter, Dooley & Gartner, 2007) that is important. To extend an analogy from biological development, what we suggest is that the way a new venture is nurtured is just as fundamental as its nature. Much prior research has focused on the nature of new ventures and attempted to attribute variations in outcomes directly to the impact resource endowments and investments have. While there is little doubt that venture resource attributes such as human capital, and specifically prior entrepreneurial experience (Alsos & Kolvereid, 1998), access to social (Davidsson & Honig, 2003) and financial capital have an influence. Resource attributes themselves are distal from successful start-up endeavours and remain inanimate if not for the actions of the nascent venture. The key contribution we make is to shift focus from whether or not actions are taken, but when these actions happen and how that is situated in the overall gestation process. Thus, we suggest that it is gestation process dynamics, or when gestation actions occur, that is more proximal to venture outcomes and we focus on this. Recently scholars have highlighted the complexity that exists in the start-up or gestation process, be it temporal or contextual (Liao, Welsch & Tan, 2005; Lichtenstein et al. 2007). There is great variation in how long a start-up process might take (Reynolds & Miller, 1992), some processes require less action than others (Carter, Gartner & Reynolds, 1996), and the overall intensity of the start-up effort is also deemed important (Reynolds, 2007). And, despite some evidence that particular activities are more influential than others (Delmar & Shane, 2003), the order in which events may happen is, until now, largely indeterminate as regard its influence on success (Liao & Welsch, 2008). We suggest that it is this complexity of the intervening gestation process that attenuates the effect of resource endowment and has resulted in mixed findings in previous research. Thus, in order to reduce complexity we shall take a holistic view of the gestation process and argue that it is its’ dynamic properties that determine nascent venture attempt outcomes. Importantly, we acknowledge that particular gestation processes of themselves would not guarantee successful start-up, but it is more correctly the fit between the process dynamics and the ventures attributes (Davidsson, 2005) that is influential. So we aim to examine process dynamics by comparing sub-groups of venture types by resource attributes. Thus, as an initial step toward unpacking the complexity of the gestation process, this paper aims to establish the importance of its role as an intermediary between attributes of the nascent venture and the emergence of that venture. Here, we make a contribution by empirically examining gestation process dynamics and their fit with venture attributes. We do this by firstly, examining that nature of the influence that venture attributes such as human and social capital have on the dynamics of the gestation process, and secondly by investigating the effect that gestation process dynamics have on venture creation outcomes. Methodology and Propositions In order to explore the importance that gestation processes dynamics have in nascent entrepreneurship we conduct an empirical study of ventures start-ups. Data is drawn from a screened random sample of 625 Australian nascent business ventures prior to them achieving consistent outcomes in the market. This data was collected during 2007/8 and 2008/9 as part of the Comprehensive Australian Study of Entrepreneurial Emergence (CAUSEE) project (Davidsson et al., 2008). CAUSEE is a longitudinal panel study conducted over four years, sourcing information from annually administered telephone surveys. Importantly for our study, this methodology allows for the capture and tracking of active nascent venture creation as it happens, thus reducing hindsight and selection biases. In addition, improved tests of causality may be made given that outcome measures are temporally removed from preceding events. The data analysed in this paper represents the first two of these four years, and for the first time has access to follow-up outcome measures for these venture attempts: where 260 were successful, 126 were abandoned, and 191 are still in progress. With regards to venture attributes as gestation process antecedents, we examine specific human capital measured as successful prior experience in entrepreneurship, and direct social capital of the venture as ‘team start-ups’. In assessing gestation process dynamics we follow Lichtenstein et al. (2007) to suggest that the rate, concentration and timing of gestation activities may be used to summarise the complexity dynamics of that process. In addition, we extend this set of measures to include the interaction of discovery and exploitation by way of changes made to the venture idea. Those ventures with successful prior experience or those who conduct symbiotic parallel start-up attempts may be able to, or be forced to, leave their gestation action until later and still derive a successful outcome. In addition access to direct social capital may provide the support upon which the venture may draw in order to persevere in the face of adversity, turning a seemingly futile start-up attempt into a success. On the other hand prior experience may engender the foresight to terminate a venture attempt early should it be seen to be going nowhere. The temporal nature of these conjectures highlight the importance that process dynamics play and will be examined in this research Statistical models are developed to examine gestation process dynamics. We use multivariate general linear modelling to analyse how human and social capital factors influence gestation process dynamics. In turn, we use event history models and stratified Cox regression to assess the influence that gestation process dynamics have on venture outcomes. Results and Implications What entrepreneurs do is of interest to both scholars and practitioners’ alike. Thus the results of this research are important since they focus on nascent behaviour and its outcomes. While venture attributes themselves may be influential this is of little actionable assistance to practitioners. For example it is unhelpful to say to the prospective first time entrepreneur “you’ll be more successful if you have lots of prior experience in firm start-ups”. This research attempts to close this relevance gap by addressing what gestation behaviours might be appropriate, when actions best be focused, and most importantly in what circumstances. Further, we make a contribution to the entrepreneurship literature, examining the role that gestation process dynamics play in outcomes, by specifically attributing these to the nature of the venture itself. This extension is to the best of our knowledge new to the research field.

A review of models of spatial innovation infrastructures in support of high growth SMEs

This Paper first provides a review and analysis of the recent trends on innovation infrastructures developed in industrialised countries to promote innovation and competitiveness for high growth SMEs. It specifically aims to examine various spatial models developed to support provision of innovation infrastructure for high growth sector.

Universities, SMEs and innovation frameworks : think global, act local?

Universities are increasingly encouraged to take a leading role in economic development, particularly through innovation. Simultaneously, economic development policy itself is increasingly focused on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), creating overlapping interactions in the roles of government policy, universities and SMEs and the processes of innovation creation and dissemination. This paper examines issues arising from these developments and relating to the key stakeholders (industry, government and universities in particular), the enabling mechanisms (network governance, relevant education, training and learning, and suitable structures), and local and cross-local links. The authors then use quantitative analysis of 450 SMEs in the UK to begin to evaluate the roles of universities and highlight areas for further theoretical development.

Entrepreneurship and family firms : a case study in growth and survival

Entrepreneurial marketing has gained popularity in both the entrepreneurship and marketing disciplines in recent times. The success of ventures that have pursued what are considered non-traditional marketing approaches has been attributed to entrepreneurial marketing practices. Despite the multitude of marketing concepts and models, there are prominent venture successes that do not conform to these and have thus been put in the ''entrepreneurial'' box. One only has to look to the ''Virgin'' model to put this in context. Branson has proven for example that not ''sticking to the knitting'' can work with the ways the Virgin portfolio has been diversified. Consequently, an entrepreneurial orientation is considered a desirable philosophy and has become prominent in such industries as airlines and information technology. Miles and Arnold (1991) found that entrepreneurial orientation is positively correlated to marketing orientation. They propose that entrepreneurial orientation is a strategic response by firms to turbulence in the environment. While many marketing successes are analysed in hindsight using traditional marketing concepts and strategies, there are those that challenge standard marketing textbook recommendations. Marketing strategy is often viewed as a process of targeting, segmenting and positioning (STP). Academics and consultants advocate this approach along with the marketing and business plans. The reality however is that a number of businesses do not practice these and pursue alternative approaches. Other schools of thought and business models have been developing to explain differences in orientation such as branding (Keller 2001), the service-dominant logic (Vargo and Lusch 2004) and effectuation logic (Sarasvathy 2001). This indicates that scholars are now looking to cognate fields to explain a given phenomenon beyond their own disciplines. Bucking this trend is a growing number of researchers working at the interface between entrepreneurship and marketing. There is now an emerging body of work dedicated to this interface, hence the development of entrepreneurial marketing as an alternative to the traditional approaches. Hills and Hultman (2008:3) define entrepreneurial marketing as ''a spirit, an orientation as well as a process of passionately pursuing opportunities and launching and growing ventures that create perceived customer value through relationships by employing innovativeness, creativity, selling, market immersion, networking and flexibility.'' Although it started as a special interest group, entrepreneurial marketing is now gaining recognition in mainstream entrepreneurship and marketing literature. For example new marketing textbooks now incorporate an entrepreneurial marketing focus (Grewal and Levy 2008). The purpose of this paper is to explore what entrepreneurial approaches are used by entrepreneurs and their impact on the success of marketing activities. Methodology/Key Propositions In order to investigate this, we employ two cases: 42Below, vodka producers from New Zealand and Penderyn Distillery, whisky distillers from Wales. The cases were chosen based on the following criteria. Firstly, both companies originate from small economies. Secondly, both make products (spirits) from locations that are not traditionally regarded as producers of their flagship products and thirdly, the two companies are different from each other in terms of their age. Penderyn is an old company established in 1882, whereas 42Below was founded only in 1999. Vodka has never been associated with New Zealand. By the same token, whisky has always been associated with Scotland and Ireland but never been with Wales. Both companies defied traditional stereotypes in marketing their flagship products and found international success. Using a comparative a case study approach, we use Covin and Slevin's (1989) set of items that purport to measure entrepreneurial orientation and apply a qualitative lens on the approaches of both companies. These are: 1. cultural emphases on innovation and R&D 2. high rate of new product introduction 3. bold, innovative product development 4. initiator proactive posture 5. first to introduce new technologies and products 6. competitive posture toward competitor 7. strong prolictivity for high risk, high return projects 8. environment requires boldness to achieve objectives 9. when faced with risk, adopts aggressive, bold posture. Results and Implications We find that both companies have employed entrepreneurial marketing approaches but with different intensities. While acknowledging that they are different from the norm, the specifics of their individual approaches are dissimilar. Both companies have positioned their products at the premium end of their product categories and have emphasised quality and awards in their communication strategies. 42Below has carved an image of irreverence and being non-conformist. They have unashamedly utilised viral marketing and entered international markets by training bartenders and hosting unconventional events. They use edgy language such as vodka university, vodka professors and vodka ambassadors. Penderyn Distillery has taken a more traditional approach to marketing its products and portraying romantic images of age-old tradition of distilling as key to their positioning. Both companies enjoy success as evidenced by industry awards and international acclaim.