TY  - JOUR
T1  - GİRİŞİMCİNİN PERSPEKTİFİNDEN KENDİ GİRİŞİMSEL BAŞARI DEĞERLENDİRMESİ VE BAĞLAM TARTIŞMASI
TT  - DISCUSSION OF SUBJECTIVE SUCCESS EVALUATION AND CONTEXT FROM ENTREPRENEURSHIP PERSPECTIVE
AU  - Öztürk, Oğuzhan
AU  - Çitçi, Umut Sanem
AU  - Dinçer, M. A. Metin
PY  - 2018
DA  - December
Y2  - 2018
DO  - 10.22139/jobs.385230
JF  - İşletme Bilimi Dergisi
JO  - About the Journal
PB  - Sakarya Üniversitesi
WT  - DergiPark
SN  - 2148-0737
SP  - 153
EP  - 174
VL  - 6
IS  - 3
LA  - tr
AB  - Amaç ve Problem: Bu çalışmanın amacı, öznelgirişimsel başarı literatüründe ihmal edilen “bağlamın” etkisini ortaya koymaktır. Öznel girişimsel başarı,girişimcinin ne yaptığında ve nereye ulaştığında kendisini başarılı gördüğü ileilgili bir durumdur. Literatürde; ekonomik bir birim olan işletmenin kurucusuve çoğu zaman yöneticisi olan girişimcilerin, rasyonel bir varlık olmalarınıngereği olarak ekonomik hedeflerini gerçekleştirme oranına göre kendilerini başarılıbulacağı öngörülmektedir. Wach ve arkadaşları (2016), girişimsel başarıdeğerlendirmesinde ekonomik kriterlerin yanında, eş önem düzeyine sahip başkabaşarı kriterlerinin de olabileceğini iddia etmektedirler. Ancak Wach vd.,geliştirdikleri girişimsel başarı kriterlerinin bütün girişimciler için geçerlive kültürler-arası değişmez olduğunu varsayarak, “öznel” girişimsel başarıdeğerlendirmesinde “bağlamın” rolünügöz ardı etmişlerdir. Bu göz ardı ediş girişimsel başarı literatürünün genelproblemidir. Yöntem: Bu çalışmanın iddiası, ilerisürülen girişimsel başarı kriterlerinin yani öznel unsurların “bağlam” çerçevesinde şekillendiğidir. Buiddiadan hareketle, ilk olarak, Wach vd. tarafından geliştirilen 17 maddelikölçek 5’li Likert ölçüm düzeyiyle 100 girişimciye gönderilmiştir. Geri dönen 55ankette girişimcilerin büyük bir kısmının önemli (4) ve kesinlikle önemliseçeneklerini (5) işaretlediği görülmüştür. Bu durumun “olanı” değil “olmasıgerekeni” yansıttığına yönelik şüphelerden hareketle, girişimciler içingirişimsel başarı kriterlerinin önem düzeylerinin farklılaşacağı öngörülmüştür.Bu farklılaşmayı tespit etmek adına, farklı arka plana sahip 6 girişimci ilegörüşme yapılarak AHS (Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci) analizi uygulanmıştır.Girişimciler için girişimsel başarı kriterlerinin öneminin farklılaşmasınınarkasında bağlamın etkisini tespit etmek adına, AHS analizindeki her bir ikilikarşılaştırmadan sonra “niçin?” sorusu sorularak bağlama ilişkin detaylı nitelveri de elde edilmiştir. Bulgular: Bu şekilde üç aşamalı biraraştırma sonunda, girişimcilerin öznel başarılarını değerlendirirken farklıbağlamsal koşullardan etkilendikleri sonucuna varılmıştır. Sonuç Araştırma sonucunda,araştırmacıların geliştirdiği üç düzeyli bağlam modelini destekleyici verilerelde edilmiştir ve girişimsel başarı değerlendirmesinde 3 farklı bağlamdüzeyinin 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 faktörleringirişimsel başarı değerlendirmesinde bir etkisinin olduğuna ulaşılmıştır. Bualt bağlamsal faktörlerden özellikle “içerdiğiformal/informal kurumlar”, “endüstriyapısı” ve “girişimsel özellikler”in“girişimcilerin kendini başarılı bulma” halini etkilediği tespit edilmiştir.
KW  - Girişimcilik
KW  - Öznel Girişimsel Başarı
N2  - The aim of this study is todemonstrate the effect of context in evaluating subjective entrepreneurialsuccess. Subjective entrepreneurial success is about what an entrepreneur doesand where he finds himself as successful. The literature suggests that entrepreneurswho are founders of businesses and generally managers, which is an economicunit for rationality (e.g.:Perren,1999;2000; Barreria, 2004; Parker, 2009), find themselvessuccessful with their achievement rates, according to Wach et al.’s successcriteria.The fundamental claim of this study is that depending on theperspective of the entrepreneurs’ perspective, that is, the meaning they placeon the success criteria which arise from the context will be different. Thebasic assumption of this study is that the context, which entrepreneurs are onepart of it, is influenced by their own actions as well as their behavior andstrategic decisions (Kim et al., 1989; Denicolai et al., 2015). In order totest this claim, a three-stage research is conducted. In this study, the effect of context onentrepreneurs to finding themselves as successful is being empiricallyinvestigated. This study is designed to be related to the sense ofaccomplishment of the entrepreneurs depending on their level of reaching theirgoals determined by rational or irrational means. Considering that the contextis not something that can be seen directly, from the perspective of theentrepreneur, what is seen and how it is assessed is gaining importance (Hanks,1992). In this case the reality, which surrounds individuals, is that they livein it and how they explain/interpret it varies depending on their perspectives.Therefore, everything that will affect the interpretation of individuals in asituation (i.e. education, personal characteristics, background) becomesvariable (Augier, 2001). Consequently, the context inwhich events develop and the interpretation of this context from theperspective of the entrepreneur becomes a factor which influences how theentrepreneur see his/her behavior and success.The success feeling which is based on an event in the market conditionsand taking a position opportunity which emerged in these conditions on theentrepreneur should not have the same causality mechanism with the otherentrepreneur who has to overcome with the insufficient resources. In the firststep of the research, the scale which was developed by Wach et al. (2015) hasbeen translated into Turkish. The questionnaire is a tool used by researchersto show why qualitative study was needed for this research. The questionnaireis modified for 100 entrepreneurs to understand what it means for Turkishentrepreneurs with the convenient sampling technique. At the end of thisprocess, 55 questionnaires were obtained. The survey, which has 17 items, isconducted as the pilot study and determined that most of the entrepreneurssignificantly chose important (4) and very important (5) options. In terms ofTurkish entrepreneurs, this situation reveals that the perception of the scaleitems mentioned in the questionnaire have equal priorities among theparticipants. But when we consider the situation of Turkey as an emergentmarket having different institutional backgrounds from other countries, it canbe anticipated that the importance degree of these items may differ. Therefore,we added a new stage to this research to investigate and understand how theentrepreneurs give consciousness response and comparative importance attributedto the questionnaire. After the pilot study, to ease the qualitative part ofthe research and to present more powerful justification, Multiple CriteriaDecision Making Technique was used. For this technique, entrepreneurs are askedto evaluate the five criteria by making binary comparisons. To this end, weconducted interviews with 6 entrepreneurs who have different backgrounds fromeach other. In order to find out whether there is a difference in context weasked a “why” question after every binary comparison. Through this way, wecollected detailed qualitative datum. As a result of the Multi-CriteriaDecision Making Technique and the qualitative data analysis, the main pointsdetermined by the researchers can be expressed as follows: (i) In the mainstudy, which is conducted by Wach at al (2015), 5 criteria have been evaluatedseparately from each other but in our study, interviewees have built indirectrelationships between these 5 criteria. (ii) When we ask the question “what issuccess?” to the entrepreneurs, all of them insistently stated that “this/itwill be relative”. This result prompted us to think and inquire the requirementof a study to conduct on subjective entrepreneurial success which hasgeneralization aim on this issue. (iii) One of the interviewees stated that the‘modern world has already made people hypocritical;” again, this statementprompts us to inquire the responses especially on workplaceassociations/relations and collective impact criteria. (iv) Entrepreneurs, whoare expected to be rational, associating success with happiness can evaluatethe effects of the context as they leave concrete evolution dimension on thesecond plan. (v) Also, it is observed that as the effect of the context, thedistinction between financial rewards, firm performance equal rights, and fairpartnership statements gain more importance rather than institutionalism. (vi)Another contextual element which is observed in the study is sectoraldifferences, because sectoral differences affect the evaluation of success fromsector to sector. (vii) Due to Turkey’s still emergent market economy,entrepreneurs are in a dilemma of sorts, which is being materialist andspiritual. (viii) Furthermore, it isunderstood that entrepreneurs, who have entrepreneurs in their family, havehigher success satisfaction than the others. Results of this three-step studyshow that, entrepreneurs were affected by different context conditions whileevaluating their subjective achievements. As a result of this study; datasupporting the “Three-Level Context Model” developed by authors is obtained. Contextis found to effect subjective entrepreneurial success phenomenon by thedimensions of “formal/informal institutions”, “industry structure” and“entrepreneurial characteristics”. The contextual qualifications considered inthis study and new studies that are conducted in the future may be possible tomake more qualified and general comparative studies in the field ofentrepreneurship. Besides another contribution of context studies inentrepreneurship may be the point of distinguishing the identity of entrepreneurs.Moreover, through this study scholars can develop a more comprehensive androbust scale for the entrepreneurial success.
CR  - Boudon, R. (2014). What is Context?. Köln Z Soziol, (Supple) 66: 17-45.
CR  - Huen, C. W. (2009). What is Context?. Anthropological Theory, 9 (2): 149-169.
CR  - Pettigrew, A. M. (1987). Context and Action in the Transformation of the Firm, Journal of Management Studies, 24 (6): 649- 670.
CR  - 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.
CR  - 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.
CR  - Strathern, M. (1992). Parts and Wholes: Refiguring Relationships in a Post- plural World, Kuper A. (ed.), Conceptualizing Society: 75–104. London: Routledge.
CR  - Thornton, P. H. (1999). The Sociology of Entrepreneurship. Annual Review of Sociology, 25: 19-46.
CR  - Aytaç, Ö. ve İlhan, S. (2007). Girişimcilik ve Girişimci Kültür: Sosyal Bir Perspektif. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 18: 101-102.
CR  - Dess, G. G. ve Beard, D. (1984). Dimensions of Organizational Task Environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29 (1): 52-73.
CR  - 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.
CR  - Makhbul, Z. M. ve Hasun, F. M. (2011). Entrepreneurial Success: An Exploratory Study among Entrepreneurs, International Journal of Business and Management, 6 (1): 116.
CR  - 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.
CR  - 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.
CR  - 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.
CR  - 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.
CR  - 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.
CR  - Short, J. C. vd. (2010). Research Methods in Entrepreneurship: Opportunities and Challenges, Organizational Research Methods, 13 (1): 6-15.
CR  - 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.
CR  - 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.
CR  - Parker, S. C. (2009). The Economics of Entrepreneurship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

CR  - Weber, M. (1999). Protestan Ahlakı ve Kapitalizmin Ruhu, Çev. Z.Gürata, Ankara: Ayraç Yay.
CR  - Barreira, J. (2004), The influence of business knowledge and work experience, as antecedents to entrepreneurial success, Doktora Tezi, Pretoria: University of Pretoria.
CR  - 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
CR  - https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/outcome [Erişim:   14.06.2017]
UR  - https://doi.org/10.22139/jobs.385230
L1  - https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/607612
ER  -