The Effect of Entrepreneurs' Behavior on Start-ups: The Case of Turkey Technoparks

Öz

Purpose: This study aims to investigate the entrepreneurs by observing structural activities directly in their working environments. Methodology: Within the scope of the study, structured observation, which is a sociological method, was used to investigate the daily behaviors of 10 entrepreneurs in start-ups located in technoparks of Turkey. Findings: There are 4 main findings in the study. The first one: The work of the entrepreneurs is described as short-term and fragmented. The second finding is the entrepreneurs focus on analytical work, conceptual work and knowledge transfer; it has been found that entrepreneurs in Turkey spend most of their time on procedural works. The third finding is the international entrepreneurs mainly focus on three functions (human resources and employee relations, marketing, sales and public relations and management) while in Turkey entrepreneurs focus on the functions which are related to the control, financing and management, directly affect the product. Fourth and the final finding is entrepreneurs spend most of their work time on communicating with others. This situation relates with international entrepreneurs. Practical Implications: Turkish entrepreneurs should take care of other than product related activities. Activities such as marketing should be managed through centers established in technology regions and systems that will reduce procedural jobs should be developed by institutions. Originality: There are not many studies on the behavior of entrepreneurs in start-ups in Turkey. This study aims to give an idea about the behavior of entrepreneurs who are important for Turkey’s welfare. It is thought that entrepreneurs will make an important contribution in terms of not doing it but seeing the behaviors they should do.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Entrepreneurship
• Innovation
• Start-up
• Innovation ecosystem
• Turkey

Girişimci Davranışlarının Başlangıç Aşamasındaki Girişimlere Etkisi: Türkiye Teknoparkları Örneği

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışma ile girişimcileri, çalışma ortamlarında doğrudan gözlemleyerek, yaptıkları çalışmalar hakkında daha fazla bilgi edinilmesi amaçlanmaktadır. Yöntem: Çalışma kapsamında, Türkiye teknoparklarında başlangıç aşamasında bulunan girişimler üzerine çalışan 10 girişimcinin günlük davranışlarını araştırmak için bir sosyolojik yöntem olan yapılandırılmış gözlem kullanılmıştır. Bulgular: Çalışma kapsamında 4 ana bulgu mevcuttur. Birinci bulgu, girişimcilerin işleri kısa süreli ve parçalanmış işler olarak nitelendirilmiştir. İkinci bulgu, girişimcilerin, analitik çalışma, kavramsal çalışma ve bilgi transferine odaklandığı; Türkiye girişimcilerinin usule ilişkin işlere çok zaman harcadığı tespit edilmiştir. Üçüncü bulgu, yurtdışındaki girişimcilerin faaliyetlerini, temel olarak üç işleve (insan kaynakları; pazarlama; yönetim) odakladıkları görülürken, Türkiye’deki girişimciler bunların aksine ürünü tamamlama ve ürünü direk etkileyen; kontrol, finanse etme ve yönetim ile ilgili işlevlere odaklandıkları görülmüştür. Dördüncü bulgu, girişimciler, yurtdışındaki örneklerle benzer olarak çalışma zamanlarının çoğunu başkalarıyla iletişim kurmak için harcamaktadırlar. Sonuç ve Öneriler: Türk girişimciler üretim dışı faaliyetlere özen göstermelidir. Pazarlama gibi faaliyetler teknoloji bölgelerinde kurulan merkezler ile yönetilmeli ve usule ilişkin işleri azaltacak sistemler, kurumlar tarafından geliştirilmelidir. Özgün Değer: Türkiye’de başlangıç aşamasındaki girişimcilerin davranışı üzerine çok fazla çalışma bulunmamaktadır. Bu çalışma, Türkiye’nin refahı için önemli olan girişimcilerin davranışları hakkında fikir vermeyi hedeflemektedir. Girişimcilerin yapmadıkları ancak yapmaları gereken davranışları görmeleri adına önemli bir katkı sağlayacağı düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Girişimcilik
• Başlangıç aşaması
• İnovasyon
• İnovasyon Ekosistemi

Kaynakça

1. Andersson, S. ve Tell, J. (2009), “The relationship between the manager and growth in small firms”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 16(4), 586–598.
2. Aitken, A., ve Crawford, L. (2008, July), Senior management perceptions of effective project manager behavior: An exploration of a core set of behaviors for superior project managers. In PMI Research Conference, Warsaw.
3. Bird, B.J. ve Schjoedt, L. (2009), “Entrepreneurial behavior: Its nature, scope, recent research, and agenda for future research”. In A.L. Carsrud & M. Brännback (Eds.), Understanding the entrepreneurial mind, international studies in entrepreneurship (pp. 327–358). New York: Springer Science & Business Media, LLC.
4. Carter, N. M., Gartner, W. B., ve Reynolds, P. D. (1996), “Exploring start-up event sequences”. Journal of business venturing, 11(3), 151-166.
5. Carmeli, A. (2003), The relationship between emotional intelligence and work attitudes, behavior and outcomes: An examination among senior managers. Journal of managerial Psychology, 18(8), 788-813.
6. Chepurenko, A. (2019). ‘Non-Routine Entrepreneurs’: Another Path of Realizing Entrepreneurial Intentions. Administrative Sciences, 9(2), 38.
7. Churchill, N. ve Lewis, V.L. (1983), “The five stages of small business growth”. Harvard Business Review, 61(3), 30–50.
8. Delmar, S. ve Shane, S. (2004), “Legitimating first: Organizing activities and the survival of new ventures”, Journal of Business Venturing, 19(3), 385–410.

9. Eckhardt, J. T., Ciuchta, M. P., ve Carpenter, M. (2018). Open innovation, information, and entrepreneurship within platform ecosystems. Strategic entrepreneurship journal, 12(3), 369-391.
10. Emory, C.W. ve Cooper, D.R, (1991). Business research methods (4th ed.). Homewood, IL: Irwin.
11. Ferrante, Francesco, (2005), “Revealing Entrepreneurial Talent”, Small Business Economics, 25, 159-174.
12. Ferrante, F., Federici, D., ve Parisi, V. (2018). The entrepreneurial engagement of Italian university students: some insights from a population-based survey. Studies in Higher Education, 1-24.
13. Freeman, J., ve Engel, J. S. (2007), Models of innovation: Startups and mature corporations. California Management Review, 50(1), 94-119.
14. Gartner, W.B., Carter, N.M., ve Reynolds, P.D. (2010), “Entrepreneurial behavior: Firm organizing processes” In Z. Acs ve D. Audretsch (Eds.), International handbook series on entrepreneurship (Vol. 5, pp. 99–127). New York: Springer.
15. Gherhes, C., Williams, N., Vorley, T. ve Vasconcelos, A. C. (2016). Distinguishing micro-businesses from SMEs: a systematic review of growth constraints. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 23(4), 939-963.
16. Gruber, M. ve MacMillan, I. C. (2017). Entrepreneurial behavior: A reconceptualization and extension based on identity theory. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 11(3), 271-286.
17. Hanks, S.H. ve Chandler, G. (1994), “Patterns of functional specialization in emerging high tech firms”, Journal of Small Business Management, 32(2), 23–36.
18. Karimi, A. Malekmohamadi, I. Daryani, A. M ve Rezvanfar, A. (2011), “A Conceptual Model Of Intrapreneurship in The Iranian Agricultural Extension Organization Implications For HRD”. Journal of European Industrial Training, 35(7), 632-657.
19. Kazanjian, R.K. (1988), “Relation of dominant problems to stages of growth in technology-based new ventures”, Academy of Management Journal, 31(2), 257–279.
20. Kazanjian, R.K. ve Drazin, R. (1990), “A stage-contingent model of design and growth for technology-based venture”, Journal of Business Venturing, 5(3), 137–150.
21. Koh, Chye Hian, (1996), “Testing hypotheses of entrepreneurial characteristics A study of Hong Kong MBA students”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 11(3), 12-25.
22. Kurke, L.B. ve Aldrich, H.E. (1983), “Mintzberg was right! A replication and extension of the nature of managerial work”, Management Science, 29(8), 975–984.
23. Lichtenstein, B., Dooley, K., ve Lumpkin, G. (2006), “Measuring emergence in the dynamics of new venture creation”, Journal of Business Venturing, 21(2), 153–175.
24. Markels, A. (1997, April 8), “Memo 4/8/97, FYI: Messages inundate offices”, Wall Street Journal, p. B1.
25. Martinko, M.J. ve Gardner, W.L. (1985), “Beyond structured observation: Methodological issues and new directions”, Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 676–695.
26. Mayring, P. (2011), Nitel Sosyal Araştırmaya Giriş (Gümüş, A. ve Durgun, M.S., Çev.). Bilge Su Yayınları. Ankara
27. McCarthy, A.M., Krueger, D.A., ve Schoenecker, T.S. (1990), “Changes in the time allocation patterns of entrepreneurs”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 15(2), 7–18.
28. Miller, D. (2003), “An asymmetry-based view of advantage: Towards an attainable sustainability”, Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 961–976.
29. Mintzberg, H. (1973). The Nature of Managerial Work. New York: Harper and Row.
30. Mueller, S., Volery, T., ve von Siemens, B. (2012), “What Do Entrepreneurs Actually Do? An Observational Study of Entrepreneurs’ Everyday Behavior in the Start‐Up and Growth Stages”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(5), 995-1017.
31. Pugliese, R., Bortoluzzi, G., ve Zupic, I. (2016). Putting process on track: empirical research on start-ups’ growth drivers. Management Decision, 54(7), 1633-1648.
32. Reynolds, P. ve Curtin, R. (2010), New Business Creation: An International Overview. New York: Springer.
33. Scott, M. ve Bruce, R. (1987), “Five stages of growth in small business”, Long Range Planning, 20(3), 45–52.
34. Schenkel, M. T., Farmer, S., ve Maslyn, J. M. (2019). Process improvement in SMEs: The impact of harmonious passion for entrepreneurship, employee creative self-efficacy, and time spent innovating. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 29(1), 64-77.
35. Schierjott, I., Brennecke, J., ve Rank, O. N. (2018). Entrepreneurial Attitudes as Drivers of Managers’ Boundary‐Spanning Knowledge Ties in the Context of High‐Tech Clusters. Journal of Small Business Management, 56, 108-131.
36. Schjoedt, L. (2017). Entrepreneurs’ Behavior: A Black Box in Entrepreneurship Research. In Revisiting the Entrepreneurial Mind (pp. 411-423). Springer, Cham.
37. Schumpeter, J.A (1976). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. NewYork: Harperand Row.
38. Shaver, K.G. ve Scott, L.R. (1991). “Person, process, choice. The psychology of new venture creation”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(2), 23–45.
39. Stewart, R. (Ed.). (2019). Managerial work. Routledge. van de Ven, A.H., Hudson, R., ve Schroeder, D.M. (1984), “Designing new business startups: Entrepreneurial, organization, and ecological consideration”, Journal of Management, 10(1), 87–107.
40. Venkataraman, S. (1997), The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research. Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence and growth, 3(1), 119-138.
41. Volery, T., ve Mueller, S. (2018). Managing paradoxes and tensions: a key element of entrepreneurs’ leadership behaviour. In Research Handbook on Entrepreneurship and Leadership. Edward Elgar Publishing.
42. Weinberger, E., Wach, D., Stephan, U., ve Wegge, J. (2018). Having a creative day: Understanding entrepreneurs’ daily idea generation through a recovery lens. Journal of Business Venturing, 33(1), 1-19.