ACE research briefing paper 005: Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) - Australia 2011 National Report

This report maps the current state of entrepreneurship in Australia using data from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) for the year 2011. Entrepreneurship is regarded as a crucial driver for economic well-being. Entrepreneurial activity in new and established firms drives innovation and creates jobs. Entrepreneurs also fuel competition thereby contributing indirectly to market and productivity growth along with improving competitiveness of the national economy. Given the economic landscape that exists as a result of the global financial crisis (GFC), it is probably more important than ever for us to understand the effects and drivers of entrepreneurial activity and attitudes in Australia. The central finding of this report is that entrepreneurship is certainly alive and well in Australia. With 10.5 per cent of the adult population involved in setting up a new business or owning a newly founded business as measured by the total entrepreneurial activity rate (TEA) in 2011, Australia ranks second only to the United States among the innovation-driven (developed) economies. Compared with 2010 the TEA rate has increased by 2.7 percentage points. Furthermore, in regard to employee entrepreneurial activity (EEA) rate in established firms, Australia ranks above average. According to GEM data, 5 per cent of the adult population is engaged in developing or launching new products, a new business unit or subsidiary for their employer. Further analysis of the GEM data also clearly shows that Australia compares well with other major economies in terms of the ‘quality’ of entrepreneurial activities being pursued. Indeed, it is not only the quantity of entrepreneurs but also the level of their aspirations and business goals that are important drivers for economic growth. On average, for each business started in Australia driven by the lack of alternatives for the founder to generate income from any other source, there are five other businesses started where the founders specifically want to take advantage of a business opportunity that they believe will increase their personal income or independence. With respect to innovativeness, 31 per cent of Australian new businesses offer products or services which they consider to be new to customers or where very few, or in some cases no, other businesses offer the same product or service. Both these indicators are higher than the average for innovation-driven economies. Somewhat below average is the international orientation of Australian entrepreneurs whereby only 12 per cent aim at having a substantial share of customers from international markets. So what drives this high quantity and quality of entrepreneurship in Australia? The analysis of the data suggests it is a combination of both business opportunities and entrepreneurial skills. It seems that around 50 per cent of the Australian population identify opportunities for a start-up venture and believe that they have the necessary skills to start a business. Furthermore, a large majority of the Australian population report that high media attention for entrepreneurship provides successful role models for prospective entrepreneurs. As a result, 12 per cent of our respondents have expressed the intention to start a business within the next three years. These numbers are all well above average when compared to the other major economies. With regard to gender, the GEM survey shows a high proportion of female entrepreneurs. Approximately 8.4 per cent of adult females are actually involved in setting up a business or have recently done so. Although this female TEA rate is slightly down from 2010, Australia ranks second among the innovation-driven economies. This paints a healthy picture of access to entrepreneurial opportunities for Australian women.

Not a dirty word : arts entrepreneurship and higher education

While the majority of creative, performing, and literary artists are self-employed, relatively few tertiary arts schools attempt to develop capabilities for venture creation and management (and entrepreneurship more broadly) and still fewer do so effectively. This article asks why this is the case. It addresses underlying conceptual and philosophical issues encountered by arts educators, arguing that in all three senses of the term: new venture creation; career self-management; and being enterprising, entrepreneurship is essential to career success in the arts. However, the practice of entrepreneurship in the arts is significantly different from the practice of entrepreneurship in business, in terms of the artist’s drivers and aims, as well as the nature of entrepreneurial opportunities, contexts and processes. These differences mean that entrepreneurship curricula cannot simply be imported from Business schools. This article also examines the arts-idiosyncratic challenge of negotiating distinctive and potentially conflicting entrepreneurial aims, using career identity theory. It concludes by suggesting strategies by which adaptive entrepreneurial artist identities can be developed through higher education programs.

Engagement, persistence, progress and success as theoretically distinct aspects of business creation processes

Starting from the vantage point that explaining success at creating a venture should be the unique contribution—or at least one unique contribution—of entrepreneurship research, we argue that this success construct has not yet been adequately defined an operationalized. We thus offer suggestions for more precise conceptualization and measurement of this central construct. Rather than regarding various success proxies used in prior research as poor operationalizations of success we argue that they represent other important aspects of the venture creation process: engagement, persistence and progress. We hold that in order to attain a better understanding of venture creation these constructs also need to be theoretically defined. Further, their respective drivers need to be theorized and tested separately. We suggest theoretical definitions of each. We then develop and test hypotheses concerning how human capital, venture idea novelty and business planning has different impact on the different assessments of the process represented by engagement, persistence, progress and success. The results largely confirm the stated hypotheses, suggesting that the conceptual and empirical approach we are suggesting is a path towards improved understanding of the central entrepreneurship phenomenon of new venture creation.

Business planning, idea change, flexibility and performance: the best of both worlds?

The relationships between business planning and performance have divided the entrepreneurship research community for decades (Brinckmann et al, 2010). One side of this debate is the assumption that business plans may lock the firm in a specific direction early on, impede the firm to adapt to the changing market conditions (Dencker et al., 2009) and eventually, cause escalation of commitments by introducing rigidity (Vesper, 1993). Conversely, feedback received from the production and presentation of business plans may also lead the firm to take corrective actions. However, the mechanisms underlying the relationships between changes in business ideas, business plans and the performance of nascent firms are still largely unknown. While too many business idea changes may confuse stakeholders, exhaust the firm’s resources and hinder the undergoing legitimization process, some flexibility during the early stages of the venture may be beneficial to cope with the uncertainties surrounding new venture creation (Knight, 1921; March, 1982; Stinchcombe, 1965; Weick, 1979). Previous research has emphasized adaptability and flexibility as key success factors through effectual logic and interaction with the market (Sarasvathy, 2001; 2007) or improvisation and trial-and-error (Miner et al, 2001). However, those studies did not specifically investigate the role of business planning. Our objective is to reconcile those seemingly opposing views (flexibility versus rigidity) by undertaking a more fine-grained analysis at the relationships between business planning and changes in business ideas on a large longitudinal sample of nascent firms.

The underlying rationale for planning: do nascent and young firms do what they say they do?

Previous studies investigating the relationships between business planning and performance have led to inconclusive results (Brinckmann et al., 2010; Delmar & Shane, 2003; Frese, 2009; Gruber, 2007; Honig & Karlsson, 2004). Institutional theory argues that firms develop business plans as an answer to external and internal pressures to gain legitimization (Delmar & Shane, 2004) and funding from different stakeholders (Karlsson & Honig, 2009). Action theory suggests that planning will pave the new venture creation journey by providing milestones and a program to implement (Frese, 2009). However, studies with an institutional perspective imply that nascent firms are either conforming to or looking for the benefits of these external or internal pressures (Karlsson & Honig, 2009) while action theory assumes that the plans will be implemented (Frese, 2009). This paper attempts to (i) investigate if the intended uses of the business plans provided by nascent and young firms match their actual uses during their venture creation process and (ii) to examine how the types of uses of business plans impact the firms’ outcomes over three years.

The language of optimism : how entrepreneurs sell the sizzle in business plan offer documents

Existing macro level research on the new venture creation process recognises the entrepreneur as a central agent in the process yet generally avoids, at each stage of the process, an examination of the micro level psychological behaviour of the individual entrepreneur. By integrating two theoretical approaches to entrepreneurship research, the psychology of the entrepreneur and the entrepreneurship process, this paper examines, using content analysis, the language used by new venture founders in documents directly linked to their capital raising activity. The study examined the language of 108 offer documents (information memorandum’s) which were divided between 54 new ventures that were successful in raising capital and 54 new ventures that either did not proceed further or were not successful in raising capital through the Australian Small Scale Offerings Board. Specifically, we were interested in examining the level of optimism evident in these narratives given that entrepreneurs have been previously described in the literature as being excessively optimistic.

Spot the differences in traditional and social entrepreneurial intention : highlighting the role of human and social capital

There is general agreement in the scientific community that entrepreneurship plays a central role in the growth and development of an economy in rapidly changing environments (Acs & Virgill 2010). In particular, when business activities are regarded as a vehicle for sustainable growth at large, that goes beyond mere economic returns of singular entities, encompassing also social problems and heavily relying on collaborative actions, then we more precisely fall into the domain of ‘social entrepreneurship’(Robinson et al. 2009). In the entrepreneurship literature, prior studies demonstrated the role of intentionality as the best predictor of planned behavior (Ajzen 1991), and assumed that the intention to start a business derives from the perception of desirability and feasibility and from a propensity to act upon an opportunity (Fishbein & Ajzen 1975). Recognizing that starting a business is an intentional act (Krueger et al. 2000) and entrepreneurship is a planned behaviour (Katz & Gartner 1988), models of entrepreneurial intentions have substantial implications for intentionality research in entrepreneurship. The purpose of this paper is to explore the emerging practice of social entrepreneurship by comparing the determinants of entrepreneurial intention in general versus those leading to startups with a social mission. Social entrepreneurial intentions clearly merit to be investigated given that the opportunity identification process is an intentional process not only typical of for profit start-ups, and yet there is a lack of research examining opportunity recognition in social entrepreneurship (Haugh 2005). The key argument is that intentionality in both traditional and social entrepreneurs during the decision-making process of new venture creation is influenced by an individual's perceptions toward opportunities (Fishbein & Ajzen 1975). Besides opportunity recognition, at least two other aspects can substantially influence intentionality: human and social capital (Davidsson, 2003). This paper is set to establish if and to what extent the social intentions of potential entrepreneurs, at the cognitive level, are influenced by opportunities recognition, human capital, and social capital. By applying established theoretical constructs, the paper draws comparisons between ‘for-profit’ and ‘social’ intentionality using two samples of students enrolled in Economy and Business Administration at the University G. d’Annunzio in Pescara, Italy. A questionnaire was submitted to 310 potential entrepreneurs to test the robustness of the model. The collected data were used to measure the theoretical constructs of the paper. Reliability of the multi-item scale for each dimension was measured using Cronbach alpha, and for all the dimensions measures of reliability are above 0.70. We empirically tested the model using structural equation modeling with AMOS. The results allow us to empirically contribute to the argument regarding the influence of human and social cognitive capital on social and non-social entrepreneurial intentions. Moreover, we highlight the importance for further researchers to look deeper into the determinants of traditional and social entrepreneurial intention so that governments can one day define better polices and regulations that promote sustainable businesses with a social imprint, rather than inhibit their formation and growth.

ACE research vignette 021 : does the use of “bricolage” make start-ups more innovative?

This series of research vignettes is aimed at sharing current and interesting research findings from our team of international Entrepreneurship researchers. In this vignette, Professor Per Davidsson and Associate Professor Paul Steffens consider the links between entrepreneurial “bricolage” and innovation.

Early stage start-ups : evidence from the Comprehensive Australian Study of Entrepreneurial Emergence (CAUSEE)

In this chapter, the picture of Australian small business is supplemented by using data from the Comprehensive Australian Study of Entrepreneurial Emergence (CAUSEE) . This data tracks large numbers of on-going business start-ups over time. The Australian Centre of Entrepreneurship Research at Queensland University of Technology collected data in four annual waves. (Wave 1 to Wave 4) from 2007 to 2011. CAUSEE allows the analysis of entrepreneurial entrants at two stages of development, i.e. nascent and young firms. Nascent firms are defined as firms in the process of being created, but not yet established in the market, and young firms are defined as having been operational for up to four years. An analysis of nascent firms provides unique insights, as no other known Australian database captures and follows the development of business start-ups at the pre-operational stage. In addition, the project captured judgment over samples of high-potential start-ups.

Culture as a driver of entrepreneurship : contrasting independent entrepreneurship versus employee entrepreneurship

Principal Topic Counties in Northern Europe, such as Sweden, Finland and Denmark, have comparatively low per capita rates of entrepreneurship as measured by independent new venture start-up rates – as for example measured by the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) Total entrepreneurial activity (TEA) rate. However, the latest 2011 GEM data reveals that these same countries have comparatively very high Employee Entrepreneurship Activity (EEA) rates – that is a high rate per capita of employees involved in new product development or new enterprise activities. This observation has prompted us to investigate the role of national culture in driving independent versus employee entrepreneurial activities. Prior research has established that national (and regional) culture plays an important role in forming an “entrepreneurial culture” that encourages (or discourages) independent business start-ups and TEA (e.g. Davidsson, 1995; Beugelsdijk, 2007). However, the relationship of culture and EEA has not received research attention. Moreover, empirical relationships between elements of national culture and independent entrepreneurship have revealed some surprising results. For example, Wildeman et al. (1999) report an unexpected higher share of individual business ownership in countries that have higher uncertainty avoidance, higher power distance and lower individualism according to Hofstede’s dimensions of culture. They speculate that dissatisfaction can be a source of entrepreneurship: in countries with a high power distance, a high uncertainty avoidance and low individualism, there may be relatively more business owners since enterprising individuals cannot satisfy their needs within existing organizations. Yet it remains a rather open question whether entrepreneurial behaviour in existing organisations provides a satisfactory explanation for these empirical findings. Methods We will conduct a cross sectional study of the influence of national culture according to the five / six dimensions of Hofstede (1980; 2001) on both TEA and EEA for the 54 countries that participated in GEM 2011. Since it is well established that the opportunities for entrepreneurship vary substantially with a country’s level of economic development, we intend to conduct separate analyses for the three categories of development – innovation driven economies, efficient driven economies and factor driven economies. We also intend to restrict our assessment of TEA to opportunity driven entrepreneurship, as necessity driven entrepreneurship has a different relationship to the “entrepreneurial culture” that is the focus of our study. We will control for a range of factors such as GDP growth, ease of doing business index and unemployment. Results and Implications Descriptive analyses of the GEM TEA and EEA data reveal clusters of countries that appear to be have similar national culture. We are yet to conduct regression analyses.

Killing our darling: why we need to let go of the entrepreneurial opportunity construct

We support Shane and Venkataraman’s (2000) basic idea of an “entrepreneurship nexus” where characteristics of the actor as well as those of the “opportunity” they work on influence action and outcomes in the creation of new economic activities. However, a review of the literature reveals that minimal progress has been made on the core issues pertaining to the nexus idea. We argue that this is rooted in fundamental and insurmountable problems with the “opportunity” construct itself, and demonstrate the state of confusion in the literature caused by inconsistent use of the construct within and across works and authors. As an alternative, we suggest the admittedly subjective notion of New Venture as a more workable alternative. We provide a comprehensive definition and explanation of this construct, and take steps towards improved conceptualization and operationalization of its subdimensions. With some further work on these conceptualizations and operationalizations it will be possible to implement a comprehensive research program that can finally deliver on the promise outlined by Shane and Venkataraman (2000).

Asset specificity and behavioral uncertainty as moderators of the sales growth-employment growth relationship in emerging ventures

New venture growth is a central topic in entrepreneurship research. Although sales growth is emerging as the most commonly used measure of growth for emerging ventures, employment growth has also been used frequently. However, empirical research demonstrates that there are only very low to moderately sized correlations between the two (Delmar et aL, 2003; Weinzimmer, et al., 1998). In addition) sales growth and employment growth respond differently to a wide variety of criteria (Baum et al., 2001; Delmar et al., 2003). In this study we use transaction cost economics (Williamson, 1996) as a theoretical base to examine transaction cost influences on the addition of new employees as emerging ventures experience sales growth. \\le theorize that transaction cost economics variables will moderate the relationship between sales growth and employment growth. W'e develop and test hypotheses related to asset specificity, behavioral uncertainty, and the influence of resource munificence on the strength of the sales growth/ employment growth relationship. Asset specificity is theorized to be a positive moderator of the relationship between sales growth and employment growth. When the behavioral uncertainty associated with adding new employees is greater than that of outsourcing or subcontracting, it is hypothesized to be a negative moderator of the sales growth/employment growth relationship. We also hypothesize that resource scarcity will strengthen those relationships.

Where do entrepreneurial skills come from?

Applying Lazear's jack-of-all-trades theory, we investigate the formation of entrepreneurial skills in two data sets on innovative new firms. Our results suggest that traditional human capital indicators individually have little or no influence on entrepreneurial skills. However, consistent with Lazear's theory, those entrepreneurs who exhibit a varied set of work experience have higher entrepreneurial skills relevant for starting and growing a firm. This supports the notion that a varied set of work experiences rather than depth of any particular type of experience or education is important for the development of entrepreneurial skills.

Business model experimentation : what is the role of deign-led prototyping in developing novel business models?

This book presents readers with the opportunity to fundamentally re-evaluate the processes of innovation and entrepreneurship, and to rethink how they might best be stimulated and fostered within our organizations and communities. The fundamental thesis of the book is that the entrepreneurial process is not a linear progression from novel idea to successful innovation, but is an iterative series of experiments, where progress depends on the persistence and resilience of the individuals involved, and their ability and to learn from failure as well as success. From this premise, the authors argue that the ideal environment for new venture creation is a form of “experimental laboratory,” a community of innovators where ideas are generated, shared, and refined; experiments are encouraged; and which in itself serves as a test environment for those ideas and experiments. This environment is quite different from the traditional “incubator,” which may impose the disciplines of the established firm too early in the development of the new venture.

Illustrating outcomes for Australian nascent and young firm entrepreneurial activity

This paper examines the outcomes of nascent and young entrepreneurial firms in Australia. Findings of interest in this paper include: • After three years similar proportions of nascent firms reach an operational state (31 per cent), i.e. sales regularly exceed costs, compared with those that have terminated (35 per cent), and those who are still trying to achieve venture creation (34 per cent). This outcome closely mirrors the outcomes in the US PSED study. • The young firm sample shows that these new ventures remain more robust to firm closure. The vast majority of young firms (78 per cent) continue to be active in the market the last time they participated in CAUSEE. • The annual termination rate for young firms is 9 per cent at most, and 14 per cent cumulatively, while cumulatively only 8 per cent of young firms experience a drop-off in activity to be considered as having uncertain status. • The average number of employees in Nascent Firms is one person, the average number of Young Firm employees increases from two at first sampling to three after three years. • While the founders of exiting Nascent Firms are more likely to return to their old job upon termination of their business, Young Firm founders move on to new jobs. Regardless the majority of exiting firm founders rate their experience as positive and are prepared to attempt business creation in the future.