DISCUSSION OF SUBJECTIVE SUCCESS EVALUATION AND CONTEXT FROM ENTREPRENEURSHIP PERSPECTIVE

Year 2018, Volume: 6 Issue: 3, 153 - 174, 26.12.2018

Umut Sanem Çitçi , Oğuzhan Öztürk , M. A. Metin Dinçer

https://doi.org/10.22139/jobs.385230

Cited By: 1

Abstract

The aim of this study is to
demonstrate the effect of context in evaluating subjective entrepreneurial
success. Subjective entrepreneurial success is about what an entrepreneur does
and where he finds himself as successful. The literature suggests that entrepreneurs
who are founders of businesses and generally managers, which is an economic
unit for rationality (e.g.: 
Perren,1999;2000; Barreria, 2004; Parker, 2009), find themselves
successful with their achievement rates, according to Wach et al.’s success
criteria.The fundamental claim of this study is that depending on the
perspective of the entrepreneurs’ perspective, that is, the meaning they place
on the success criteria which arise from the context will be different. The
basic assumption of this study is that the context, which entrepreneurs are one
part of it, is influenced by their own actions as well as their behavior and
strategic decisions (Kim et al., 1989; Denicolai et al., 2015). In order to
test this claim, a three-stage research is conducted.   In this study, the effect of context on
entrepreneurs to finding themselves as successful is being empirically
investigated. This study is designed to be related to the sense of
accomplishment of the entrepreneurs depending on their level of reaching their
goals determined by rational or irrational means. Considering that the context
is not something that can be seen directly, from the perspective of the
entrepreneur, what is seen and how it is assessed is gaining importance (Hanks,
1992). In this case the reality, which surrounds individuals, is that they live
in it and how they explain/interpret it varies depending on their perspectives.
Therefore, everything that will affect the interpretation of individuals in a
situation (i.e. education, personal characteristics, background) becomes
variable (Augier, 2001).

Consequently, the context in
which events develop and the interpretation of this context from the
perspective of the entrepreneur becomes a factor which influences how the
entrepreneur see his/her behavior and success. 
The success feeling which is based on an event in the market conditions
and taking a position opportunity which emerged in these conditions on the
entrepreneur should not have the same causality mechanism with the other
entrepreneur who has to overcome with the insufficient resources. In the first
step of the research, the scale which was developed by Wach et al. (2015) has
been translated into Turkish. The questionnaire is a tool used by researchers
to show why qualitative study was needed for this research. The questionnaire
is modified for 100 entrepreneurs to understand what it means for Turkish
entrepreneurs with the convenient sampling technique. At the end of this
process, 55 questionnaires were obtained. The survey, which has 17 items, is
conducted as the pilot study and determined that most of the entrepreneurs
significantly chose important (4) and very important (5) options. In terms of
Turkish entrepreneurs, this situation reveals that the perception of the scale
items mentioned in the questionnaire have equal priorities among the
participants. But when we consider the situation of Turkey as an emergent
market having different institutional backgrounds from other countries, it can
be anticipated that the importance degree of these items may differ. Therefore,
we added a new stage to this research to investigate and understand how the
entrepreneurs give consciousness response and comparative importance attributed
to the questionnaire. After the pilot study, to ease the qualitative part of
the research and to present more powerful justification, Multiple Criteria
Decision Making Technique was used. For this technique, entrepreneurs are asked
to evaluate the five criteria by making binary comparisons. To this end, we
conducted interviews with 6 entrepreneurs who have different backgrounds from
each other. In order to find out whether there is a difference in context we
asked a “why” question after every binary comparison. Through this way, we
collected detailed qualitative datum. As a result of the Multi-Criteria
Decision Making Technique and the qualitative data analysis, the main points
determined by the researchers can be expressed as follows: (i) In the main
study, which is conducted by Wach at al (2015), 5 criteria have been evaluated
separately from each other but in our study, interviewees have built indirect
relationships between these 5 criteria. (ii) When we ask the question “what is
success?” to the entrepreneurs, all of them insistently stated that “this/it
will be relative”. This result prompted us to think and inquire the requirement
of a study to conduct on subjective entrepreneurial success which has
generalization aim on this issue. (iii) One of the interviewees stated that the
‘modern world has already made people hypocritical;” again, this statement
prompts us to inquire the responses especially on workplace
associations/relations and collective impact criteria. (iv) Entrepreneurs, who
are expected to be rational, associating success with happiness can evaluate
the effects of the context as they leave concrete evolution dimension on the
second plan. (v) Also, it is observed that as the effect of the context, the
distinction between financial rewards, firm performance equal rights, and fair
partnership statements gain more importance rather than institutionalism. (vi)
Another contextual element which is observed in the study is sectoral
differences, because sectoral differences affect the evaluation of success from
sector to sector. (vii) Due to Turkey’s still emergent market economy,
entrepreneurs are in a dilemma of sorts, which is being materialist and
spiritual.  (viii) Furthermore, it is
understood that entrepreneurs, who have entrepreneurs in their family, have
higher success satisfaction than the others.

Results of this three-step study
show that, entrepreneurs were affected by different context conditions while
evaluating their subjective achievements. As a result of this study; data
supporting the “Three-Level Context Model” developed by authors is obtained. Context
is found to effect subjective entrepreneurial success phenomenon by the
dimensions of “formal/informal institutions”, “industry structure” and
“entrepreneurial characteristics”. The contextual qualifications considered in
this study and new studies that are conducted in the future may be possible to
make more qualified and general comparative studies in the field of
entrepreneurship. Besides another contribution of context studies in
entrepreneurship may be the point of distinguishing the identity of entrepreneurs.
Moreover, through this study scholars can develop a more comprehensive and
robust scale for the entrepreneurial success.

Keywords

Entrepreneurship, Subjective Entrepreneurial Success, Entrepreneurial Context

GİRİŞİMCİNİN PERSPEKTİFİNDEN KENDİ GİRİŞİMSEL BAŞARI DEĞERLENDİRMESİ VE BAĞLAM TARTIŞMASI

Abstract

Amaç ve Problem: Bu çalışmanın amacı, öznel
girişimsel başarı literatüründe ihmal edilen “bağlamın” etkisini ortaya koymaktır. Öznel girişimsel başarı,
girişimcinin ne yaptığında ve nereye ulaştığında kendisini başarılı gördüğü ile
ilgili bir durumdur. Literatürde; ekonomik bir birim olan işletmenin kurucusu
ve çoğu zaman yöneticisi olan girişimcilerin, rasyonel bir varlık olmalarının
gereği olarak ekonomik hedeflerini gerçekleştirme oranına göre kendilerini başarılı
bulacağı öngörülmektedir. Wach ve arkadaşları (2016), girişimsel başarı
değerlendirmesinde ekonomik kriterlerin yanında, eş önem düzeyine sahip başka
başarı kriterlerinin de olabileceğini iddia etmektedirler. Ancak Wach vd.,
geliştirdikleri girişimsel başarı kriterlerinin bütün girişimciler için geçerli
ve kültürler-arası değişmez olduğunu varsayarak, “öznel” girişimsel başarı
değerlendirmesinde “bağlamın” rolünü
göz ardı etmişlerdir. Bu göz ardı ediş girişimsel başarı literatürünün genel
problemidir.

Yöntem: Bu çalışmanın iddiası, ileri
sürülen girişimsel başarı kriterlerinin yani öznel unsurların “bağlam” çerçevesinde şekillendiğidir. Bu
iddiadan hareketle, ilk olarak, Wach vd. tarafından geliştirilen 17 maddelik
ölçek 5’li Likert ölçüm düzeyiyle 100 girişimciye gönderilmiştir. Geri dönen 55
ankette girişimcilerin büyük bir kısmının önemli (4) ve kesinlikle önemli
seçeneklerini (5) işaretlediği görülmüştür. Bu durumun “olanı” değil “olması
gerekeni” yansıttığına yönelik şüphelerden hareketle, girişimciler için
girişimsel başarı kriterlerinin önem düzeylerinin farklılaşacağı öngörülmüştür.
Bu farklılaşmayı tespit etmek adına, farklı arka plana sahip 6 girişimci ile
görüşme yapılarak AHS (Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci) analizi uygulanmıştır.
Girişimciler için girişimsel başarı kriterlerinin öneminin farklılaşmasının
arkasında bağlamın etkisini tespit etmek adına, AHS analizindeki her bir ikili
karşılaştırmadan sonra “niçin?” sorusu sorularak bağlama ilişkin detaylı nitel
veri de elde edilmiştir.

Bulgular: Bu şekilde üç aşamalı bir
araştırma sonunda, girişimcilerin öznel başarılarını değerlendirirken farklı
bağlamsal koşullardan etkilendikleri sonucuna varılmıştır.

Sonuç Araştırma sonucunda,
araştırmacıların geliştirdiği üç düzeyli bağlam modelini destekleyici veriler
elde edilmiştir ve girişimsel başarı değerlendirmesinde 3 farklı bağlam
düzeyinin etkisinin olduğu bulgusuna ulaşılmıştır. Buna göre “girişimciyi çevreleyen kurum temelli”, “girişimcinin temas halinde olduğu” ve “girişimcinin kendi ve firmasından kaynaklı”
şeklinde 3 farklı bağlam düzeyindeki çeşitli alt bağlamsal faktörlerin
girişimsel başarı değerlendirmesinde bir etkisinin olduğuna ulaşılmıştır. Bu
alt bağlamsal faktörlerden özellikle “içerdiği
formal/informal kurumlar”, “endüstri
yapısı” ve “girişimsel özellikler”in
“girişimcilerin kendini başarılı bulma” halini etkilediği tespit edilmiştir.  

Keywords

Girişimcilik, Öznel Girişimsel Başarı

References

• Boudon, R. (2014). What is Context?. Köln Z Soziol, (Supple) 66: 17-45.
• Huen, C. W. (2009). What is Context?. Anthropological Theory, 9 (2): 149-169.
• Pettigrew, A. M. (1987). Context and Action in the Transformation of the Firm, Journal of Management Studies, 24 (6): 649- 670.
• Pillis, E. G. (1998). What’s Achievement Got to Do with It? The role of National Culture in the Relationship between Entrepreneurship and a Achievement Motivation. Frontier of Entrepreneurship Research: 73-87.
• Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Causation and Effectuation: Toward a Theoretical Shift from Economic Inevitability to Entrepreneurial Contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26 (2): 243-263.
• Strathern, M. (1992). Parts and Wholes: Refiguring Relationships in a Post- plural World, Kuper A. (ed.), Conceptualizing Society: 75–104. London: Routledge.
• Thornton, P. H. (1999). The Sociology of Entrepreneurship. Annual Review of Sociology, 25: 19-46.
• Aytaç, Ö. ve İlhan, S. (2007). Girişimcilik ve Girişimci Kültür: Sosyal Bir Perspektif. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 18: 101-102.
• Dess, G. G. ve Beard, D. (1984). Dimensions of Organizational Task Environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29 (1): 52-73.
• Falleti, T. G. ve Lynch, J. F. (2009). Context and Causal Mechanisms in Political Analysis. Comparative Political Studies, 42: 1143-1166. Kaya, N. ve Selçuk, S. (2007). Bireysel Başarı Güdüsü Organizasyonel Bağlılığı Nasıl Etkiler?. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 8 (2): 175-190.
• Makhbul, Z. M. ve Hasun, F. M. (2011). Entrepreneurial Success: An Exploratory Study among Entrepreneurs, International Journal of Business and Management, 6 (1): 116.
• Augier, M., Shariq, S. Z. ve Vendelo, M.T. (2001). Understanding Context: Its Emergence, Transformation and Role in Tacit Knowledge Sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5 (2): 125-137.
• Denicolai, S., Hagen B. ve Pisoni, A. (2015). Be International or Be Innovative? Be both? The Role of the Entrepreneurial Profile. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 13: 390-417.
• Ireland, R. D., Reutzel, C. R., ve Webb, J. W. (2005). Entrepreneurship Research in AMJ: What Has Been Published, and What might the Future Hold?. Academy of Management Journal, 48 (4): 556-564.
• Kim, K. C., Hurh, W. M. ve Fernandez, M. (1989). Intra-group Differences in Business Participation: Three Asian Immigrant Groups. International Migration Review, 23 (1): 73-95.
• Peng, M. W. vd. (2009). The Institution-Based View as a Third Leg for a Strategy Tripod. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 23 (3): 63-81.
• Short, J. C. vd. (2010). Research Methods in Entrepreneurship: Opportunities and Challenges, Organizational Research Methods, 13 (1): 6-15.
• Wach, D., Stephan, U. ve Gorgievski, M. (2015). More than Money: Developing an Integrative Multi-Factoral Measure of Entrepreneurial Success. International Small Business Journal, 34 (8): 1098-1121.
• Hanks, W. F. (1992). The Indexical Ground of Deictic Reference. Duranti A. ve Goodwin, C. (edt.), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, 43–76. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Parker, S. C. (2009). The Economics of Entrepreneurship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Weber, M. (1999). Protestan Ahlakı ve Kapitalizmin Ruhu, Çev. Z.Gürata, Ankara: Ayraç Yay.
• Barreira, J. (2004), The influence of business knowledge and work experience, as antecedents to entrepreneurial success, Doktora Tezi, Pretoria: University of Pretoria.
• Laurent, D. ve Ayele Sorato, B. (2014). Assessment of Entrepreneurial Success Perceptions at Umeå University: A Quantitative Study on Student’s Perceptions of Entrepreneurial Success. Unpublished Bachelor thesis. Umeå School of Business and Economics
• https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/outcome [Erişim: 14.06.2017]