The Effect of Part-Time Entrepreneurship Features on Innovative Behaviors in Public Institutions

Year 2021, Volume: 10 Issue: 2, 47 - 72, 01.12.2021

Furkan Çelebi

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this paper is to investigate the effect of part-time entrepreneurship features on innovative
behaviours.
Methodology: The data from 456 volunteers who work in public bodies were analysed. Compatibility, validation and
reliability tests of metrics were conducted. Correlation and regression tests of confirmed measures were conducted with
confirmatory factor analysis.
Findings: It is determined that there is a significant, positive and strong relation between part-time entrepreneurship
features and innovative behaviours and all of the dimensions. After that, in order to identify the effect of part-time
entrepreneurship features on innovative behaviours and all of their elements, linear regression analysis was performed.
According to the results, it is monitored that part-time entrepreneurship has a significant, positive and strong effect on
innovative behaviours and dimensions.
Practical Implications: It is precipitated that there is an intense effect of fulltime employees’ part-time entrepreneurship
features on their innovative behaviours of their fulltime jobs. Since the increase of innovative behaviours in the
workplace contributes affirmatively to the organization; it can be suggested that excluding their full time jobs, part-time
entrepreneurship activities of the individuals should be supported.
Originality: This study is a genuine research which tries to reveal part-time entrepreneurship features on innovative
behaviours in the workplace. On the other hand, the metrics were adapted into Turkish; thus extension in the national
literature is another vital contribution of the paper.

Keywords

Part-time Enterpreneurship, Innovative Behaviors, Hybrid enterpreneurship

Yarı Zamanlı Girişimcilik Özelliklerinin Kamu Kurumlarındaki İnovatif Davranışlar Üzerine Etkisi

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı yarı zamanlı girişimcilik özelliklerinin inovatif davranışlar üzerindeki etkilerini araştırmaktır.
Yöntem: Kamuda görev yapan 456 gönüllü katılımcıdan toplanan veriler analiz edilmiştir. Ölçüm araçlarının uygunluk,
geçerlik ve güvenirlik analizleri gerçekleştirilmiştir. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ile doğrulanan ölçeklerden toplanan veriler
üzerinde korelasyon ve regresyon analizleri yapılmıştır.
Bulgular: Elde edilen bulgulara göre yarı zamanlı girişimcilik özellikleri ile inovatif davranışlar ve tüm boyutları arasında
anlamlı, pozitif yönlü ve güçlü bir ilişki tespit edilmiştir. Ardından yarı zamanlı girişimcilik özelliklerinin inovatif davranışlar
ve tüm unsurları üzerindeki etkisi için doğrusal regresyon analizi yapılmıştır. Sonuçlara göre yarı zamanlı girişimciliğin
inovatif davranışlar ve boyutları üzerinde anlamlı, pozitif yönlü ve güçlü bir etkisi olduğuna ulaşılmıştır.
Sonuç ve Öneriler: Tam zamanlı olarak bir işte çalışan bireylerin yarı zamanlı girişimcilik özelliklerinin tam zamanlı çalıştıkları işteki inovatif davranışları üzerinde güçlü bir etkisi olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. İşyerindeki inovatif davranışların
artırılmasının örgüte olumlu yönde katkılar sağlayacağı için bireylerin tam zamanlı işleri dışında yarı zamanlı girişimcilik
faaliyetlerinin desteklenmesi tavsiye edilmektedir.
Özgün Değer: Çalışma işyerindeki inovatif davranışlar üzerinde yarı zamanlı girişimcilik özelliklerinin etkisini ortaya koymaya çalışan özgün bir araştırmadır. Ayrıca kullanılan ölçüm araçlarının Türkçe uyarlamalarının yapılarak ulusal literatüre
kazandırılması da bu çalışmanın önemli bir katkısını oluşturmaktadır.

Keywords

Yarı zamanlı girişimcilik, inovatif davranışlar, hibrit girişimcilik

References

• Amabile, T. M. (1996): Creativity in Context: Update to “The Social Psychology of Creativity.” Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
• Baumgartner, H. ve Homburg, C. (1996). Applications of structural equation modeling in marketing and consumer research: A review. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(2), 139-161.
• Bayram, A. ve Kaya-Harmancı, Y. (2018). Girişimciliğe farklı bir bakış: hibrid girişimcilik. Hitit Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 11(3), 1827-1836. doi: 10.17218/hititsosbil.441948
• Bentler, P.M. (1980). Multivariate analysis with latent variables: Causal modeling. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 419-456.
• Bentler, P.M., & Bonett, D.G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
• Block, J. H. ve Landgraf, A. (2016). “Transition from part-time entrepreneurship to full-time entrepreneurship: The role of financial and non-financial motives”. International Entrepreneurship Management Journal, 12, 259-282.
• Bögenhold, D. (2019). “From Hybrid Entrepreneurs to Entrepreneurial Billionaires: Observations on the Socioeconomic Heterogeneity of Self-employment”. American Behavioral Scientist, 63(2), 129-146.
• Browne, M.W., ve Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In:
• Bollen, K.A., & Long, J.S. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (136-162). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
• Coulter, M. K. (2001). Entrepreneurship in action. Prentice Hall.
• Çapraz, B., Ayyıldız Ünnü, N., Kelgokmen İlic, D., Kocamaz, M., Çiçekli, U., Aracıoğlu, B., Koçak, A., Kesken, J., Soyuer, H. (2014). Çalışanlar Perspektifinden İnovatif İş Davranışının Belirleyicileri: İzmir İlindeki Öncelikli Sektörlere İlişkin Bir Araştırma. Girişimcilik ve İnovasyon Yönetimi Dergisi, 3 (1), 49-72.
• De Jong, J. P., ve Den Hartog, D. N. (2007). How leaders influence employees’ innovative behaviour. European Journal of innovation management.
• De Jong, J.(2004): “How Can Leaders Trigger Bottom-Up Innovation?, An Empirical Research İnto Knowledge Intensive Services”, Research Report, Zoetermeer, SCALES-Scientific Analysis of Entrepreneurship and SMEs.
• Devlet Memurları Kanunu (1965). Kanun No: 657. Resmi Gazete’de yayın tarihi, 23.07.1965.
• Dyer, W. G. (1994). Toward a theory of entrepreneurial careers. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 19, 7-22.
• Dzomonda, O. ve Fatoki, O. (2018). “Demystifying The Motivations Towards Hybrid Entrepreneurship Among the Working Populace in South Africa”. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 24(4), 1-9.
• Folta, T. B., Delmar, F. ve Wennberg, K. (2010). “Hybrid Entrepreneurship”. Management Science, 56 (2), 253-269.
• Getz, I. ve Robinson, A.G. (2003): “Innovate or Die: Is That A Fact?”, Creativity And Innovation Management, 12 (3), 130 – 136.
• Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., ve Mullen, M. R. (2008). Evaluating model fit: a synthesis of the structural equation modelling literature, Electron. J. Bus. Res. Methods, 6(1), 53-60.
• Hu, L. T., ve Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1-55..
• İlhan, M., ve Çetin, B. (2014). Lisrel ve Amos programları kullanılarak gerçekleştirilen yapısal eşitlik modeli (yem) analizlerine ilişkin sonuçların karşılaştırılması. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, 5(2), 26-42.
• Jansen, J. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A. ve Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management science, 52(11), 1661-1674.
• Janssen, O. (2000): “Job Demands, Perceptions Of Effort-Reward Fairness and Innovative Work Behaviour”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 287 – 302.
• Kanter, R. M. (1984). Change Masters Innovation & Entrepreneurship In The American Corporation. 1. Baskı. New York. Simon & Schuster Inc.
• Kanter, R. M. (1988): “When a Thousand Flowers Bloom: Structural, Collective, and Social Conditions for Innovation in Organization”, in B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 169 – 211.
• Kılıç, E. ve Erdem, İ. (2018). Çift Yetenekli Liderliğin Çalışanların İnovatif Davranışları Üzerindeki Etkisi. International Journal of Management and Administration, 2 (4), 81-90.
• Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.
• Leary, M. R., ve Kowalski, R. M. (1990): “Impression Management:A Literature Review And Two-Component Model”, Psychological Bulletin, 107, 34 – 47.
• Lee, S., ve Meyer-Doyle, P. 2017. How performance incentives shape individual exploration and exploitation: Evidence from microdata. Organization Science, 28: 19-38.
• Marsh, H.W., Hau, K.T., Artelt, C., Baumert, J., ve Peschar, J.L. (2006). OECD’s brief self-report measure of educational psychology’s most useful affective constructs: Cross-cultural, psychometric comparisons across 25 countries. International Journal of Testing, 6(4), 311-360.
• Marshall, D. R., Davis, W. D., Dibrell, C., ve Ammeter, A. P. (2019). Learning off the job: Examining part-time entrepreneurs as innovative employees. Journal of Management, 45(8), 3091-3113.
• Munro, B. H. (2005). Statistical methods for health care research (Vol. 1). lippincott williams & wilkins.
• Nakip, M. (2013). Pazarlamada Araştırma Teknikleri. Seçkin Yayıncılık, Ankara.
• Nijstad, B.A. ve De Dreu, C.K.W. (2002). Creativity and Group Innovation, Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 400-406.
• Nunnally, J. C., ve Bernstein, I. H. (1967). Psychometric theory (Vol. 226): McGrawHill New York.
• Özafşarlioğlu-Sakallı, S. (2019). Girişimcilikte Yeni Bir Yönelim: Melez (Hibrit) Girişimcilik. Girişimcilik ve Kalkınma Dergisi, 14(2), 177 189.
• Paulus, P.B. (2002). Different Ponds for Different Fish: A Contrasting Perspective on Team Innovation, Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 394-399.
• Petrova, K. (2005). Part-time entrepreneurship and wealth effects: New evidence from the panel study of entrepreneurial dynamics. In 50th ICSB Conference, Washington, June 15-18.
• Petrova, K. (2011). Part-time entrepreneurship, learning and ability, Journal of management policy and practice, 12(1), 64–75.
• Petrova, K. (2012). “Part-time entrepreneurship and financial constraints: evidence from the panel study of entrepreneurial dynamics”. Small Business Economics, 39(2), 473–493.
• Politis, D. (2005). The process of entrepreneurial learning: A conceptual framework. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29, 399-424.
• Raffiee, J. and Feng, J. (2014). Should I quit My day job? A hybrid path to entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Journal, 57(4), 936-963.
• Saunders, L., T.(2000) “Research Methods for Business Students”, Second Ed., Prebtice-Hall Inc.
• Schermelleh-Engel, K., ve Moosbrugger, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23-74.
• Schulz, M., Urbig, D. ve Procher, V. (2016). “Hybrid Entrepreneurship and Public Policy: The Case of Firm Entry Deregulation”. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(3), 272-286.
• Schumpeter, J.A. (1934): Theory of Economic Development, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Scott, S. G. ve Bruce, R. A. (1994): “Determinants Of Innovative Behavior: A Path Model of Individual Innovation in the Workplace”, Academy of Management Journal, 37, 580 – 607.
• Seçgin, Y. (2014). Kontrol odağının örgütsel bağlılık üzerine etkisinde personel güçlendirmenin aracılık rolü: Ankara il merkezindeki dört ve beş yıldızlı otel işletmelerinde bir araştırma. (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi), Gaziosmanpaşa Üniversitesi, Tokat.
• Solesvik, M.Z. (2017), Hybrid entrepreneurship: how and why entrepreneurs combine employment with self-employment. Technology innovation management review, 7(3), 33-41.
• Sutton, R.I., ve Hargadon, A. (1996): “Brainstorming Groups in Context: Effectiveness in a Product Design Firm”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 685 – 718.
• Şimşek, Ö. F. (2007). Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesine Giriş, Temel İlkeler ve Lisrel Uygulamaları. Ankara: Ekinoks.
• Thorgren, S., Nordstrom, C. ve Wincent, J. (2014). “Hybrid Entrepreneurship: The Importance of Passion”. Baltic Journal of Management, 9(3), 314-329.
• Viljamaa, A., Varamaki, E., Tornikoski E. ve Sorama, K. (2014). Hybrid Entrepreneurship –Exploration of Motives, Ambitions and Growth. Proceedings of ICSB World Conference on Entrepreneurship, 11-14 Haziran 2014, Dublin.
• West, M.A. (2002): “Sparkling Fountains or Stagnant Ponds: An Integrative Model of Creativity and Innovation Implementation in Work Groups”, Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 355-387.
• Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., and Griffin, R. W. (1993): “Toward A Theory Of Organizational Creativity”, Academy of Management Review, 18, 293 – 321.
• Xi, G., Block, J., Lasch, F., Robert, F. and Thurik, R. (2017). Mode of entry into hybrid entrepreneurship: New venture start-up versus business takeover. IZA Institute of Labor Economics, Discussion Paper Series.
• Yazicioglu, Y., ve Erdogan, S. (2004). SPSS Uygulamalı Bilimsel Arastirma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
• Yuan, F. ve Woodman, R.W. (2010): “Innovative Behavıor in the Workplace: The Role of Performance and Image Outcome Expectations”, Academy of Management Journal, 53 (2), 323 – 342.