On the compatibility of benevolence and self-interest:philanthropy and entrepreneurial orientation

This article explores the philanthropy of owner–managers of small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) investigating whether and why more entrepreneurially oriented SMEs are also more likely to engage in philanthropic activities. We find support for a positive link between entrepreneurial orientation (EO) and philanthropy in a representative sample of 270 Lithuanian SMEs controlling for alternative explanations. We highlight that philanthropy is relatively common among SME owner–managers and thus complement existing research which views philanthropy as sequentially following wealth generation. In line with our theorizing, further qualitative findings point to drivers of philanthropy beyond those considered in the dominant strategic-instrumental perspective. Building on social-psychological theories of motivation, we argue and confirm that philanthropy can also be an expression of owner–managers’ altruistic values; these values can be compatible and even mutually reinforcing with entrepreneurship. Our study is set in a transition economy, Lithuania, facilitating the analysis of heterogeneity in attitudes toward philanthropy.

Motivation and the gift relationship

This thesis proposes a theory of Motivation to Work, as a particular condition of general motivation, using the Maussian concept of the Gift to explain the operation of Lacanian Desire. Specifically, it argues that de-motivation stems from Gift rejection. However, as the arguments are not paradigmatically commensurable with managerialist theories, it has been necessary to establish the epistemological tradition of which this work is representative, namely, Critical Theory and Post-Structuralism/Post- Modernism. In distinction to the managerialist explanations of motivation, management and work, behaviourist theories of motivation are characterised as more properly a concern with psychological incentives, management in its current socio-historic institutionalised form as a process of social domination and work as a social experience of domination, but also as a forum for social life generally. However, as such a view receives little theoretical or empirical confirmation from managerialist literature, it is argued that it is necessary to broaden the catchment area of relevant writing, and that the literary arts have more insight than orthodox science. This is supported by reference to modern literary theory in terms of the Form/Content distinction. Central to this argument is the ontological concept of Difference and its `political' use in maintaining social domination by privileging certain forms over others. Having established the basis on which to articulate this theory of motivation, the Lacanian concept of Desire is explored, together with its relevance to motivation and management/organisation theory. The theory of the Gift Relationship is then explicated and developed, together with some of its popular sociological conceptualisations, and an argument made for an understanding in terms of its psychological signficance in explaining the operationalisation of Lacanian Desire. This is related to the work situation and to its relevance for organisational management. In conclusion, its utility is considered, as are some potential criticisms of the arguments put forward.

Creating innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises:evaluating the short-term effects of the creative credits pilot

This working paper looks at the short-term impact of the Creative Credits pilot scheme which operated in the Manchester City Region in the North West of England from September 2009 to September 2010, and was funded by NESTA, Manchester City Council, the North West Development Agency, the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC). Creative Credits is a business-to-business (B2B) voucher mechanism designed to encourage small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to work innovatively with creative companies. Businesses receive credits worth £4,000, which they must match with at least £1,000, to spend with creative firms on a variety of creative services.

Measuring business growth:high-growth firms and their contribution to employment in the UK

The Measuring Business Growth report is a comprehensive look at UK business growth over the past decade. It makes a powerful case that a small number of high-growth businesses are responsible for the lion's share of job creation and prosperity. It is the counterpart to Business Growth and Innovation, which considers the wider benefits of growth businesses, their socio-economic impact, and the relationship between growth and innovation. This has significant implications for the direction of economic policy. It suggests that focusing attention on growing businesses and promoting excellence, far from being an elitist policy, gives rise to widespread job creation and prosperity.

Firm dynamics and job creation in the United Kingdom:1998–2013

This article is motivated by a very simple question – ‘what types of firms create the most jobs in the UK economy?’ One popular answer to this question has been High-Growth Firms (HGFs). These firms represent only a small minority – the ‘Vital 6%’ – of the UK business population yet, but have a disproportionate impact on job creation and innovation. We re-visit the discussion launched by the 2009 National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA) reports, which identified the 6% figure and, using more recent data, confirm the headline conclusion for job creation: a small number of job-creating firms (mostly small firms) are responsible for a significant amount of net job creation in the United Kingdom. Adopting our alternative preferred analytical approach, which involves tracking the growth performance of cohorts of start-ups confirms this conclusion; however, we find an even smaller number of job-creating firms are responsible for a very significant proportion of job creation. We conclude by considering the question – ‘what are the implications for policy choices?’.