Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
W. Edward
McMullan Thomas P.
Kenworthy
Creatividad y
rendimiento
empresarial
Una teoría científica general
Explorar la diversidad en el espíritu
empresarial
Editores de la serie
Alan L. Carsrud, Universidad de Åbo Akademi,
Finlandia Malin Brännback, Universidad de Åbo
Akademi, Finlandia y Universidad de Estocolmo, Suecia
Creatividad y rendimiento
empresarial
Una teoría científica general
W. Edward McMullan Thomas P. Kenworthy
(jubilado) Universidad de Departamento de Gestión y Marketing
Calgary Escuela de la Universidad de Dayton
Haskayne School of Business de Administración de Empresas
Calgary, AB, Canadá Dayton, OH, USA
Todos requieren saltos de imaginación, la capacidad de ver las cosas de nuevo que es la marca
del emprendedor.
(David Birch 1987, p. 66)
Los científicos tampoco suelen pretender inventar nuevas teorías, y suelen ser intolerantes
con las inventadas por otros.
(Thomas Kuhn 1962, p. 24)
Agradecimientos
ix
x Contenido
8 Creatividad empresarial115
El lado negativo del Creativity.....................................................................116
Cuando la creatividad (no) es Needed .........................................................116
El espíritu empresarial como creatividad aplicada Art/Science ...................117
Creatividad empresarial Intelligence........................................................118
Lo que es común a la creatividad Intellect? .................................................121
Creatividad empresarial Personality ........................................................121
Lo que es común a la creatividad Personality? ............................................124
Creatividad empresarial Motivation .........................................................124
Lo que es común a Creative Motivation? ....................................................126
Pensamiento creativo empresarial Style...................................................126
Lo que es común al pensamiento creativo Styles? .......................................128
Empresario Knowledge ............................................................................128
Lo que es común a Creative Knowledge? ....................................................131
Desarrollo de la medición Instruments ........................................................131
Ver Empresario Creativity Holistically ........................................................132
Confluence ...................................................................................................132
Thresholds....................................................................................................133
Gama de Applicability .................................................................................133
Contingencies...............................................................................................134
The Direction of Causation ..........................................................................134
Conclusion ...................................................................................................135
xii Contenido
Conteni
9 Dinámica empresarial137
The Rationalist Model..................................................................................137
do Límites a Strategic Rationality .....................................................................138
Sobre las limitaciones del modelo de pequeña empresa
of Entrepreneurship ......................................................................................140
Una teoría de la inversión de Entrepreneurial Creativity .............................141
Empresario Vision .......................................................................................142
Empresario Investments ...............................................................................144
Negociación con Adversity ...................................................................... el 144
Empresario Improvisation ............................................................................145
Investigar el espíritu empresarial Process ....................................................146
A Provocative Study ....................................................................................147
Conclusions..................................................................................................148
10 Desarrollar la creatividad empresarial149
Padres and Family ........................................................................................149
Primary and Secondary Education ...............................................................152
Post-Secondary Education ...........................................................................153
Career Choices .............................................................................................153
Conclusion ...................................................................................................154
11 Hacia una macroteoría de la creatividad empresarial155
El empresario del Economic Development ..................................................155
Un macromodelo de Entrepreneurial Creativity ..........................................158
Científico y tecnológico Creativity ..............................................................159
Creatividad desbordante and Entrepreneurship............................................160
Cultura empresarial y Economic Development ...........................................161
Barreras y apoyos a la creatividad Entrepreneurship ...................................161
Education .....................................................................................................162
Conclusion ...................................................................................................163
12 Algunas implicaciones y conclusiones165
Tres generales Theories ...............................................................................165
Principios generales de la teoría general
de Entrepreneurial Creativity .......................................................................166
Some Points on Methodology ......................................................................168
Implicaciones normativas de la teoría general
de Entrepreneurial Creativity .......................................................................170
Un modelo jerárquico de moral Entrepreneurial Imperatives ......................172
Possible Implications upon Education .........................................................174
Research Implications ..................................................................................176
In Summary..................................................................................................178
Referencias179
Índice203
Sinopsis del libro
1
Las teorías que se han elaborado completamente en el campo de la iniciativa empresarial son
sólo raramente predictivas y, por tanto, raramente falsables. Al descartar las teorías que no
predicen, Popper reduce el campo de las teorías que requieren una consideración seria como
parte de la ciencia del campo.
xiii
xiv Sinopsis del libro
Este libro pretende aportar una nueva y amplia dirección teórica al campo
científico social del espíritu empresarial, centrada en la predicción y explicación
del rendimiento empresarial. Se ofrecen tres perspectivas del campo del espíritu
empresarial, las dos primeras de las cuales podrían considerarse como las
opiniones dominantes o recibidas en la actualidad: (1) el espíritu empresarial como
pequeña empresa, y (2) el espíritu empresarial como inventario selectivo de
resultados empíricos. La primera perspectiva se basa en las disciplinas
empresariales como fuente de fuerza. La segunda perspectiva se basa en hallazgos
empíricos estadísticamente significativos que ayudan a explicar directamente el
rendimiento empresarial. La tercera perspectiva, que constituye la principal
aportación de este libro, vincula el campo del espíritu empresarial con el de la
creatividad. La teoría, la metodología y las pruebas (es decir, la ciencia) que
subyacen a la perspectiva de la pequeña empresa se examinan en el capítulo 3. En
el capítulo 4 se examina parte de la ciencia que subyace al inventario de hallazgos.
El resto del libro se ocupa de la ciencia que hay detrás de la creatividad
empresarial. Al final del libro, se apreciarán los puntos fuertes y débiles de cada
teoría general, así como las razones para asimilar la creatividad empresarial como
una perspectiva principal de la disciplina empresarial.
La teoría general de la creatividad empresarial (GTEC) que aquí se presenta se
apoya en un importante conjunto de pruebas. La apreciación de esta teoría debería
ayudarnos a comprender y explicar mejor los fenómenos empresariales. También
debería permitirnos predecir mejor, y quizás en última instancia controlar,
diferentes aspectos del éxito empresarial. Aunque principalmente predictiva, la
GTEC tiene implicaciones descriptivas, explicativas y normativas. Cabe esperar
que esta teoría permita mejorar la práctica con el tiempo. Sin embargo, lo más
importante es que la nueva teoría es científica en el sentido de que se mantendrá,
caerá o sufrirá modificaciones sobre la base de pruebas adicionales. Como tal, la
GTEC es refutable en un sentido popperiano.
¿Qué se llevarán los lectores de este libro? Serán más conscientes de que el
espíritu empresarial es una empresa bastante implacable con muchos perdedores y
pocos grandes ganadores financieros. Serán menos propensos a esperar que los
conocimientos de gestión faciliten el crecimiento y el desarrollo de nuevas
empresas. Apreciarán las limitaciones prácticas de las conclusiones implícitamente
teóricas y/o ateóricas. Desarrollarán una apreciación de la relevancia de la teoría
científica. Por último, serán capaces de evaluar críticamente la importancia de la
creatividad individual en la actividad de las nuevas empresas.
Este libro propone una nueva teoría científica general del espíritu empresarial.
Para apreciar lo que significa que una teoría sea científica, este libro se basa en la
filosofía de la ciencia concebida por Karl Popper (1963), posiblemente el filósofo
de la ciencia más importante del siglo XX. Algunos de los conceptos de Popper en
los que se basa este libro son la refutabilidad, la conjetura audaz y la preciencia.
Popper estableció una fuerte distinción entre la teoría refutable, que proporciona
conjeturas o predicciones (teoría predictiva), y la teoría explicativa, que puede
explicar una amplia gama de resultados, pero que básicamente no es refutable.
En Conjeturas y refutaciones (1963), Popper describe las circunstancias de
1919-1920 que le llevaron a concluir que la obra de Newton y Einstein era
científica mientras que la de Marx, Freud y Adler no lo era. Su (p. 45) problema
era explicar: "¿Qué tienen de malo el marxismo, el psicoanálisis y la psicología
individual? ¿Por qué son tan diferentes de las teorías físicas, de la teoría de
Newton y especialmente de la teoría de la relatividad?". (p. 45, cursiva en el
original) observó que sus amigos, "...que eran admiradores de Marx, Freud y
Adler, estaban impresionados por una serie de puntos comunes a estas teorías, y
especialmente por su aparente poder explicativo. Estas teorías parecían capaces de
explicar prácticamente todo lo que ocurría en los campos a los que se referían."
Popper (p. 47) observó además que estas teorías, "...se confirmaban siempre". Con
respecto al poder explicativo, (p. 47) señaló: "Empecé a darme cuenta de que esta
aparente fuerza era en realidad su debilidad". (p. 48, cursiva en el original) razonó
que no era el poder explicativo a posteriori de una teoría lo que la hacía científica,
sino que "...el criterio del estatus científico de una teoría es su falsabilidad, o
refutabilidad, o comprobabilidad..." antes del hecho.
Aun así, Popper no menospreció los trabajos de personas como Marx, Freud y
Adler. Reconocía que sus teorías eran teorías generales que ofrecían un amplio
poder explicativo que también podía evolucionar hacia un poder predictivo. Popper
caracterizó esta combinación de utilidad científica potencial, pero sin poder
predictivo, como precientífica. Según Popper (1963, pp. 37-38, paréntesis en el
original) "Por lo tanto, consideré que si una teoría se considera no científica, o
'metafísica' (como podríamos decir), no por ello se considera sin importancia, o
insignificante, o 'sin sentido', o 'sin sentido'. Pero no puede pretender estar
respaldada por pruebas empíricas en el sentido científico, aunque puede ser
fácilmente, en algún sentido genético, el "resultado de la observación"."
Some Methodological Background 3
Teorías y pruebas
La idea de que las teorías de las ciencias sociales deben predecir un rango de
varianza de los resultados es relativamente novedosa, y aún no está muy
extendida. Según el destacado metodólogo Paul Meehl, ya es hora de que las
teorías psicológicas no sólo predigan la probabilidad de las relaciones entre las
variables, sino también un rango probable de los efectos de las variables
independientes sobre las variables dependientes (Waller et al. 2006). No sólo
necesitamos saber que las variables están relacionadas (valor p), sino también algo
sobre el tamaño de la relación entre ellas. El tamaño de la relación (tamaño del
efecto) determina en parte si es económico gastar tiempo y dinero en cambiar A
para lograr B.
Incluso si fuera cierto en la realidad que la creatividad empresarial representara
el 50 % de los resultados financieros finales de las empresas, seguiría siendo
difícil demostrar esta realidad empíricamente. Se plantean graves problemas
metodológicos. Incluso pequeñas disminuciones en la fiabilidad de las medidas
pueden tener grandes repercusiones en la comprobación de la realidad subyacente
de las relaciones entre las medidas, y la fiabilidad de las medidas de creatividad
suele ser problemática. Las medidas de creatividad también plantean serias dudas
sobre su validez. Además, las medidas de rendimiento financiero suelen estar mal
relacionadas entre sí. Así mismo, las medidas de creatividad suelen estar poco
relacionadas entre sí. Por lo tanto, sería sorprendente que muchas de las muy
diferentes medidas de creatividad se relacionaran con las muchas y variadas
medidas de rendimiento financiero, especialmente cuando los resultados son
transversales en el tiempo. Para empeorar las cosas, las mediciones estadísticas son
diferentemente sensibles a las métricas (por ejemplo, las escalas), y las métricas
pueden ser bastante arbitrarias. El hecho de que algunas pruebas actuales consigan
generar colectivamente resultados convincentes, como se verá, es la única razón
para creer que la predicción de rangos de varianza funcionará en la práctica.
Cuando los futuros estudios emprendan una revisión del rendimiento de un
número considerable de empresarios, según la teoría, la creatividad empresarial
debería mantenerse como un predictor estadísticamente dominante del rendimiento
empresarial. Es de esperar, por supuesto, que los resultados de algunos estudios no
apoyen la GTEC. Habrá resultados en los que personas con una capacidad creativa
limitada tengan éxito, a través de otras posibles explicaciones causales como la
suerte ciega o incluso la combinación fortuita de influencias causales que
compiten entre sí. Las personas con creatividad empresarial fracasarán a causa de
acontecimientos que escapan a su control o incluso por su mal juicio en momentos
críticos, o porque juzgan mal los acontecimientos futuros. Sin embargo, los nulos o
negativos ocasionales
6 1 Introducción
Hoy en día, el campo del espíritu empresarial podría describirse mejor como una
hidra de muchas cabezas. Es en parte disciplina derivada, en parte empresa más
pequeña que grande (STB), en parte racionalidad empresarial convencional, en
parte buenas prácticas y en parte sentido común. El cuerpo principal de la bestia es
el negocio STB a pesar de las aspiraciones de ser algo más impresionante. Los
estudiosos y los profesionales ven predominantemente el espíritu empresarial a
través de esta lente. En las escuelas de negocios, se supone implícitamente que las
disciplinas de gestión contienen la base de conocimientos necesaria para el éxito
empresarial. Cada pequeña empresa, al igual que cada gran empresa, es juzgada
por el grado en que ha desarrollado conocimientos empresariales en áreas
Capítulo por 11
capítulo
funcionales.
Una agenda de investigación empírica, predominantemente positivista,
orientada a la comprensión del espíritu empresarial se guía sustancialmente por las
expectativas sobre la relevancia del marketing, las finanzas, las relaciones
humanas, etc. Se espera que los conocimientos de estas disciplinas básicas de
gestión arrojen luz sobre la práctica exitosa del espíritu empresarial. Este es el
statu quo de la disciplina del espíritu empresarial.
12 1 Introducción
Este capítulo ilustra los puntos fuertes y las limitaciones de intentar fragmentar el
conocimiento científico a partir de un gran número de estudios que han encontrado
datos aparentemente relacionados con el rendimiento empresarial. La teoría
general de la iniciativa empresarial de Shane (2003) se describe como un intento
de aplicar los conocimientos científicos del campo de la iniciativa empresarial al
problema de explicar e incluso predecir el rendimiento empresarial. Aunque la
teoría tiene una serie de ventajas notables, también tiene fallos en el método
empleado. La teoría de Shane proporciona un criterio para futuras teorías
generales como la que aquí se presenta.
La teoría del espíritu empresarial de Schumpeter (1934) es una teoría del desarrollo
económico. Desde su formulación original, varios estudiosos han contribuido a la
comprensión colectiva de la importancia de los empresarios para el desarrollo
económico. Mientras que Schumpeter parecía centrarse en las grandes
contribuciones innovadoras de unos pocos, los que han venido después se han dado
cuenta de que las grandes contribuciones suelen estar formadas por muchas
pequeñas innovaciones. Además, el número de empresas innovadoras y de
crecimiento parece ser mucho mayor de lo que preveía Schumpeter, aunque sea
una proporción relativamente pequeña de empresas (~3%) la que representa la
gran mayoría del crecimiento económico.
El macromodelo propuesto aquí es un intento de modificar la noción de
desarrollo económico de Schumpeter para incluir la educación para el desarrollo
creativo, los resultados de la creatividad científica y tecnológica, el grado de cultura
empresarial y el grado de apoyo a la actividad empresarial. Algunos factores,
20 1 Introducción
como la creatividad científica y tecnológica, son los que más influyen en la
creatividad empresarial y el desarrollo económico.
Capítulo por 21
capítulo
El campo científico del espíritu empresarial necesita una teoría y una base de datos
propias para distinguirse de otras ciencias sociales. La teoría general de la
creatividad empresarial se presenta como un paso más en la dirección de esta
distinción. Las implicaciones de la teoría pueden ser de gran alcance. El campo de
la iniciativa empresarial puede llegar a considerarse una forma de arte
fundamentalmente creativa por derecho propio, en lugar de una subdisciplina de la
disciplina empresarial. Un cambio intelectual de tal magnitud podría modificar el
carácter de la investigación, la educación e incluso la práctica del espíritu
empresarial en el futuro. La teoría puede cambiar la forma en que los empresarios
se ven a sí mismos. Puede cambiar la forma en que los capitalistas de riesgo y los
gobiernos buscan y apoyan a los empresarios en las economías desarrolladas y en
desarrollo.
En el caso de la educación, la teoría de la creatividad empresarial puede arrojar
una valiosa luz sobre una serie de cuestiones clave, como quién debe recibir
educación empresarial; quién debe impartir la educación; la naturaleza del
contenido del programa y la metodología de enseñanza; y la naturaleza de los
resultados previstos (Lobler 2006).
Parte I
Comprender el espíritu empresarial
Problemas
Capítulo 2
Experiencia laboral empresarial
Popper escribe que todas las ciencias comienzan con problemas. Los problemas
son necesarios para dirigir la teorización. El problema central al que se dirige este
libro es la explicación y predicción de los resultados financieros de las empresas
emprendedoras. Este capítulo sitúa el problema del rendimiento empresarial en un
contexto social y económico de problemas posiblemente relacionados.
Nunca antes se había promovido el espíritu empresarial en tantas economías y a
través de tantos medios de comunicación. Los gobiernos se comprometen
regularmente a apoyar a los emprendedores en ciernes. Las universidades educan a
muchos miles de estudiantes con mentalidad o curiosidad empresarial. Las revistas
celebran la existencia de los empresarios y los programas de televisión ofrecen
una visión de sus vidas. El objetivo de este capítulo es ofrecer una visión general
de la naturaleza y los resultados de la experiencia empresarial. Se plantean diez
preguntas sobre la actividad empresarial y se aportan pruebas científicas para
demostrar el estado de los conocimientos actuales. Las respuestas están diseñadas
para proporcionar a los investigadores, educadores y profesionales en ciernes una
idea del alcance y los límites de nuestros conocimientos.
Pregunta 1: ¿Qué frecuencia tiene el espíritu empresarial? ¿Cómo varía la
frecuencia de un país a otro?
El grado de generalización de la actividad empresarial depende en gran medida del
lugar donde se viva. Los estudios del Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM)
ofrecen los mejores datos comparativos disponibles sobre la actividad empresarial
mundial. En 2011, la decimotercera encuesta del GEM abarcó aproximadamente el
74 % de la población mundial, responsable del 87 % del producto interior bruto
mundial. Los resultados de la encuesta estimaron que el total de la actividad
emprendedora en fase inicial (TEA) constituía 388 millones de personas (entre 18
y 64 años) en las 54 economías estudiadas.
En las economías impulsadas por factores1 , la TEA estimada osciló entre el 9,1%
(Pakistán) y el
19,3 (Guatemala). En las economías impulsadas por la eficiencia, la TEA estimada
osciló entre
4,6 % (Rusia) a 24 % (China). En las economías impulsadas por la innovación, la
TEA estimada osciló entre el 3,7 % (Eslovenia) y el 12,3 % (Estados Unidos). Las
mujeres constituían aproximadamente el 42 % de todas las personas dedicadas a la
actividad empresarial en fase inicial. Las personas con edades comprendidas entre
los 35 y los 64 años constituían casi el 60% de las personas dedicadas a la
actividad empresarial inicial.
Es difícil saber hasta qué punto ha cambiado la tasa de actividad empresarial de
una economía porque los investigadores del GEM sólo recogen datos desde 1999.
Además, los estudios del GEM no incluyen todas las mismas economías cada año.
Pregunta 2: ¿Cuánto tiempo dedican los empresarios a buscar oportunidades?
¿Las ideas se les ocurren cuando las necesitan o los empresarios están
constantemente en busca de ellas?
Una cuestión clave en la investigación sobre el espíritu empresarial es la
medida en que los potenciales empresarios pueden apreciar la naturaleza y el
alcance de las oportunidades por adelantado. Shane (2003) sugiere que "la
información necesaria para determinar si un esfuerzo concreto para explotar una
oportunidad será rentable no puede conocerse con certeza en el momento en que
se identifica la oportunidad, porque esa información no existe hasta que el
empresario persigue la oportunidad".
Otra forma de enfocar la cuestión es examinar el tiempo necesario para
emprender una nueva empresa. Los resultados de la investigación sugieren que el
tiempo medio para la puesta en marcha es de aproximadamente 1 año (Reynolds y
White 1993; Reynolds y White 1997; Carter et al. 1996). Reynolds y White (1993)
descubrieron que el 20 % de los individuos completaron la gestación en un mes y
el 90 % en tres años. Carter et al. (1996, p. 163) descubrieron que aquellos "...que
no inician un negocio o llegan a la decisión de abandonar los esfuerzos para iniciar
un negocio en el plazo de un año, es probable que permanezcan en un estado de
suspensión constante..."
La cuestión de cómo surgen las ideas empresariales también es complicada de
responder. Hay dos escuelas principales de pensamiento sobre la cuestión: las
ideas de negocio se materi- alizan como resultado de la alerta empresarial (Kirzner
1973) o de la búsqueda metódica (c.f. Caplan 1999). Existen pruebas de que los
empresarios noveles buscan activamente más información sobre las ideas de
negocio que sus homólogos más experimentados, los empresarios en serie y los de
cartera (c.f. Cooper et al. 1995). También hay pruebas de que las mejores ideas se
generan mediante la búsqueda sistemática, un enfoque que aprovecha los
conocimientos y experiencias de un individuo para encontrar ideas de negocio
(Fiet 2002).
Pregunta 3: ¿En qué medida es difícil para los empresarios encontrar una idea
de calidad? ¿Con qué frecuencia las ideas dirigidas a generar buenos rendimientos
financieros justifican con creces el riesgo y la inversión realizados?
1 El
Informe de Competitividad Global del Foro Económico Mundial (FEM) ofrece definiciones de
2 Experiencia laboral empresarial 19
los tipos de economía.
20 2 Experiencia laboral empresarial
2 Hay que
tener en cuenta que la mayoría de las nuevas empresas de cada año no adoptan una forma
corporativa, un requisito para la mayoría de la financiación ángel (Shane 2008).
2 Experiencia laboral empresarial 23
En resumen
La tesis de la pequeña empresa puede sugerir que las grandes empresas son más
capaces de utilizar herramientas, técnicas y prácticas de gestión formales que sus
homólogas más pequeñas. La razón es que las grandes organizaciones disponen de
muchos más tipos de capital facilitador que las nuevas y pequeñas empresas. Esta
sección revisa la investigación centrada en el uso de las herramientas, técnicas y
prácticas de gestión de las grandes empresas en los nuevos emprendimientos. Se
centra en cinco disciplinas: planificación estratégica, contabilidad, estudios de
mercado, marketing y promoción, y gestión de recursos humanos.
El análisis que se realiza a continuación demuestra que existen una serie de
problemas en la transla- ción de los procedimientos de gestión a las nuevas
Herramientas de gestión en un contexto 31
empresarial
empresas. El primer problema es que muy pocos
32 3 El espíritu empresarial de las pequeñas empresas: ¿Es una oruga
una mariposa?
Los estudios se centran en las nuevas empresas, y prefieren centrarse en las
pequeñas y medianas empresas (PYME), que pueden llegar a tener 500 empleados.
El segundo problema es que relativamente pocos estudios se centran en la
investigación del rendimiento de las empresas. El tercer problema es que existen
pocos estudios de replicación.
Planificación estratégica
Contabilidad
Entre otras cosas, la contabilidad se utiliza para evaluar la salud financiera de una
empresa. Se basa en la recopilación cuidadosa y deliberada de datos que, en última
instancia, se utilizan para generar estados de ingresos y flujos de caja y balances.
Los gestores disponen de una serie de ratios para comparar y contrastar las
circunstancias actuales con las pasadas. No es difícil imaginar cómo las grandes
organizaciones pueden beneficiarse enormemente del uso regular de la
contabilidad. Es un poco más difícil imaginar cómo pueden beneficiarse las
empresas pequeñas y de rápido crecimiento.
Cada vez hay más investigaciones sobre el tipo de sistemas contables que se
utilizan en las nuevas empresas (véase Cassar 2009). Maes et al. (2005, p. 217)
descubrieron que los conocimientos de contabilidad financiera y de costes de 218
pequeñas empresas de construcción belgas tenían, "...un impacto significativo
directo en los resultados financieros." Brinckmann et al. (2011) examinaron
nuevas empresas en una variedad de industrias y encontraron que la competencia
de control financiero aumenta el crecimiento de las ventas, pero no el crecimiento
del empleo. Chrisman et al. (2012) examinaron los efectos de los cursos y el
asesoramiento en 256 empresarios que utilizaron servicios a través del Centro de
Desarrollo de Pequeñas Empresas de Pensilvania. No encontraron ninguna relación
entre los cursos realizados en finanzas y contabilidad y el crecimiento de la
empresa.
Otra investigación que merece la pena mencionar aquí es la de Granlund y
Taipaleenmaki (2005), que investigan el grado de implantación de los sistemas de
control de gestión/contabilidad en las nuevas empresas financiadas con capital
riesgo. Los autores (p. 49) descubrieron que las empresas no utilizaban sistemas
contables debido a las limitaciones de tiempo y a las acciones y actitudes de los
capitalistas de riesgo: "Fue sorprendente descubrir la poca atención que se
prestaba a la medición del rendimiento, a la planificación estratégica y, en algunos
casos, incluso al análisis financiero interno". Las pruebas de la utilidad de los
conocimientos financieros y contables son actualmente contradictorias. Es difícil
saber en qué circunstancias deben emplearse los procedimientos contables
formales.
Estudio de mercado
Herramientas de gestión en un contexto 35
empresarial
El campo científico del marketing comenzó a principios del siglo XX. Se ha
centrado, en su mayor parte, en las acciones de las grandes organizaciones. Es
discutible hasta qué punto la investigación y las prescripciones correspondientes
son útiles para los empresarios.
36 3 El espíritu empresarial de las pequeñas empresas: ¿Es una oruga
una mariposa?
Hills et al. (2008, p. 100) argumentan en contra de la utilidad de un enfoque de
marketing convencional para los empresarios: "La idea de que las empresas que
operan en un contexto empresarial no están bien servidas por las teorías, procesos
y herramientas del marketing 'convencional' es generalizada y ha sido una
motivación central que subyace al movimiento de la interfaz de marketing y
emprendimiento" (Morris et al. 2002; Hills y LaForge 1992). Para entender por
qué los empresarios no encuentran valor en la literatura de marketing
convencional, examinamos la investigación en el ámbito del marketing desde el
punto de vista de la investigación/estudio del entorno y de la promoción.
No es raro que los libros de texto de marketing prescriban las mismas
herramientas y prácticas de investigación de mercado tanto para las grandes como
para las pequeñas empresas. Las investigaciones existentes sugieren que los
empresarios con recursos limitados no perciben el valor de los planes de
marketing y el uso de profesionales del marketing (Hills y Narayana 1989). Rara
vez realizan estudios de mercado formales (Robinson y Pearce 1984; Meziou
1991), aunque confían en sus capacidades de investigación (Callahan y Cassar
1995). Prefieren los métodos informales y las fuentes personales para recopilar
información sobre el mercado (c.f. Brush 1992; Hills 1995; Hills y Shrader 1998;
Smeltzer at al. 1988; Schafer 1991; Brush y Peters 1992), pero no confían en la
información recopilada para planificar a largo plazo (Callahan y Cassar 1995).
La investigación dirigida a la relación entre la investigación de
mercado/escaneo del entorno y el rendimiento de las nuevas empresas es escasa y
está lejos de ser decisiva en este momento. Los resultados de los primeros estudios
no fueron concluyentes (Dollinger 1985; Brush 1992). Peters y Brush (1996, p. 87)
descubrieron que "las diferencias en la exploración según el tipo de empresa
mostraban que los fabricantes utilizaban una mayor variedad de servicios en la
recogida de información sobre el mercado. Esto no parece tener ningún efecto
importante en el crecimiento de las empresas de servicios, mientras que sí
desempeñó un papel significativo en la influencia del crecimiento de los
fabricantes." Keh et al. (2007, p. 607), "...no encontraron pruebas que apoyaran la
hipótesis de que la adquisición de información está relacionada positivamente con
el rendimiento de la empresa..." La muestra del investigador incluía empresas con
menos de 100 empleados.
Song et al. (2010, p. 565) descubrieron que "...el rendimiento de las nuevas
empresas es una función creciente del uso de procesos formales para utilizar la
información de mercado, y el impacto es de nuevo más fuerte en los mercados
establecidos". También descubrimos que, en los mercados emergentes, el uso de
procesos formales para recopilar información de mercado tiene una relación
directa, positiva y significativa con el rendimiento de las nuevas empresas.
También encontramos dos resultados sorprendentes. En contra de nuestras
hipótesis, nuestros resultados sugieren que los procesos formales son más valiosos
en los mercados establecidos. También encontramos una relación negativa entre el
nivel de interacción con el cliente y el nivel de procesos formales para la
utilización de la información". La muestra consistió en empresas respaldadas por
capital riesgo y miembros de la lista Inc 500.
Parry y Song (2010, p. 1112) descubrieron que los procesos formales de
recopilación y uso de la información de mercado tienen un impacto positivo en el
rendimiento de las empresas. Sus empresas de la muestra tenían entre 11 y 753
empleados. Kawakami et al. (2012, p. 275) descubrieron que "...el uso de un
Herramientas de gestión en un contexto 37
empresarial
proceso formalizado de utilización de la información de mercado tiene un efecto
positivo en el rendimiento de las nuevas empresas, independientemente del país".
Su muestra incluía empresas con menos de 300 empleados.
38 3 El espíritu empresarial de las pequeñas empresas: ¿Es una oruga
una mariposa?
En la actualidad, los investigadores siguen tratando de establecer si la
investigación de marketing tiene un impacto positivo constante en el rendimiento
de las nuevas empresas y, en caso afirmativo, en qué tipo de empresas y en qué
circunstancias. Habrá que seguir investigando para determinar las contingencias
que favorecen los diferentes tipos y cantidades de gastos en investigación de
marketing, así como la magnitud del rendimiento de esas inversiones de tiempo y
dinero.
Marketing Promotion
Hisrich (1992) criticized those who run new ventures and SMEs for having a poor
appreciation of marketing. In response, Coviello et al. (2000, p. 525) suggest that,
“Such criticisms inevitably use traditional views of marketing as their reference
point; views developed in the 1950s and 1960s are based on the practices of large
organizations.” In the past 20 years, there has been a great deal of discussion about
the nature and extent of new venture and SME marketing practices (c.f. Carson et al.
1995; Carson 1985; Hills 1987; Hills et al. 1983; Morris et al. 2002). Carson and
Gilmore (2000, p. 1) suggest that new ventures and SMEs, “…will progress from
existing in a relatively uncontrollable marketing circumstance to one where each
aspect of marketing it performs is relatively controlled.”
Relatively uncontrollable marketing circumstances are driven by a series of fac-
tors that new ventures and SMEs share. According to Coviello et al. (2006, p. 41)
new ventures and SMEs:
…are more likely to experience constraints in market power, capital, and managerial
resources and are driven by the hands-on involvement of the owner/manager (Carrier 1994;
Haugh and McKee 2004; McCartan-Quinn and Carson 2003). In these firms, cash flow for
survival is a management priority (Haugh and McKee 2004), and fixed costs usually absorb
a higher level of sales revenue leaving proportionately less for marketing expenditures
(Stokes 1994). As discussed by Dowling (2002), small firms also suffer from “double jeop-
ardy” in that although they have the ability to get closer to customers in a smaller market,
they have fewer buyers who may buy the brand less frequently. Finally, in comparison with
larger firms, smaller firms exhibit more informal planning; planning that is restricted in
scope and activity (McCartan-Quinn and Carson 2003) and with a short-term orientation.
(Brush 1992; Carrier 1994)
Research efforts that examine new venture and SME marketing are relatively
new. Coviello et al. (2000) examined the relevance of the traditional marketing para-
digm to smaller firms. To their surprise, they (p. 524) found, “…evidence that the
types of marketing practiced by smaller and larger firms are not, in fact, fundamen-
tally different.” The linkage between marketing practices and new venture/SME
performance is a relatively unexamined area. Coviello et al. (2006) examined the
marketing practices of tourism accommodation SME organizations. In their sample,
63 % of the firms had less than 10 employees and 83 % of the firms had less than 50
employees. The researchers (p. 38) found that, “…success requires an emphasis on
both transaction marketing and interaction-based relationship marketing to acquire
Herramientas de gestión en un contexto 39
empresarial
customers and achieve sales growth. More contemporary practices such as database
marketing, e-marketing, and network marketing are in evidence, but they are not
found to influence performance. Furthermore, it is success with customer acquisi-
tion rather than customer retention that leads to profitability for these firms.”
Eid and El-Gohary (2013) investigated the e-marketing practices of a breadth of
SME types. In their sample, approximately 56 % of the firms had between 10 and
19 employees and approximately 81 % of the firms had 39 or less employees. The
researchers (p. 31) found that, “the use of EM tools has a positive influence on SBEs
pre-sales activities, after-sales activities, marketing performance and marketing
effectiveness.”
It is difficult to know what conclusions should be drawn from this research at this
time. Researchers need to explore the nature of promotion required under different
business circumstances.
Many scholars have argued that human resource (HR) practices in entrepreneurial
firms are, or should be, different than HR practices in large firms. For example,
Klaas and Klimchak (2006, p. 248) state: “The normative literature on high perfor-
mance organizations is premised on the idea that, left to their own devices, large,
stable and complex organizations will experience problems that stem from rigidity
and the lack of information flow…Entrepreneurial firms are likely to be susceptible
to a very different set of problems.”
To date, HR research has focused predominantly on large firms. Based on a
review of HR research, Cardon and Stevens (2004, p. 320) concluded: “So too
should our scholarship concerning human issues in entrepreneurial ventures include
a more careful and comprehensive understanding of the evolving and dynamic
nature of HR management in small and emerging enterprises. In short, our respon-
sibility as scholars is to design carefully thought-out integrative studies that explore
what we do not yet know about managing non-founder employees in entrepreneur-
ial ventures.” A number of researchers have responded to calls for greater focus on
new venture and SME HR issues. The studies described below provide an illustra-
tion of the status of knowledge. Very few of the studies focus on (1) new ventures
and (2) the HR practice – firm performance linkage.
Barber et al. (1999) examined the recruiting practices of 119 small employers
(<500 employees) and 184 large employers (>1,000 employees). They found that
large firms tend to have more formal and bureaucratic practices than small firms.
Kotey and Slade (2005) investigated the adoption of formal human resource man-
agement (HRM) practices by Australian firms with no more than 200 employees.
The researchers (p. 16) found, “a move toward division of labor, hierarchical struc-
tures, increased documentation, and more administrative processes as the number of
employees increase.”
40 3 El espíritu empresarial de las pequeñas empresas: ¿Es una oruga
una mariposa?
Zheng et al. (2006) examined the performance effects of HRM practices of
Chinese firms with between 20 and 500 employees. The results (p. 1798) indicated
that, “…SMEs should place greater emphasis on staff commitment than on staff
competency to improve the likelihood of achieving better firm performance.”
Urbano and Yordanova (2008) examined 164 SMEs from the tourism sector in
Catalonia. The average firm had 69 employees and a 20-year operating history. The
findings were that HRM practices are more likely to be adopted when an HR depart-
ment exists within the firm and particularly, when the HR manager has similar prior
experience. In addition, the researchers found SMEs cooperating with other organi-
zations to be more likely to implement HRM practices.
De Grip and Sieben (2009) investigated whether HR systems in 549 Dutch phar-
macies could be associated with both higher performance and higher wages. The
authors (p. 1914) found that, “…more advanced HR systems do not have any effect
on firms’ productivity,” and conjecture that in small firms, “…formal HR practices
are less important than personal relations between the employer and his or her
employees.” Tocher and Rutherford (2009) examined perceived acute HRM prob-
lems in 1,693 firms that had no more than 500 employees. The study (p. 455)
reported the following findings: “SME owners and managers who were running
higher-performing firms were less likely to perceive acute HRM problems.
Conversely, SME owners and managers who were more experienced, who were
more educated, and who were running larger SMEs were more likely to perceive
acute HRM problems. Finally, gender, owner age, firm age, and firm growth showed
no significant relationship with likelihood of SME owners and managers perceiving
acute HRM problems.”
Zibarras and Woods (2010) examined employee selection practices across a
range of firm sizes. They (p. 507) “found that SMEs do report using unstructured
methods, but proportions are no different to larger organizations.” Messersmith and
Guthrie (2010) examined the role of HRM in 119 young firms (less than 10 years
old). The researchers (p. 115) found that firms that combined high-performance
work systems or partnership philosophy with entrepreneurial orientation (EO)
achieved substantially higher levels of growth than those firms that did not.
Storey et al. (2010) examined self-reported job quality across small and large
firms. They (p. 305) found: “employee reports of job quality are highest in small
firms and decrease as firm size increases.” Teo et al. (2011) investigated the strategic
management of frontline employees of 104 Australian manufacturing firms with
less than 200 employees. The researchers found that the presence of a human
capital-enhancing HRM system had direct and indirect impacts on manufacturing
performance outcomes. Further, the performance of frontline employees mediated
the impact of such systems on the performance outcomes.
Klaas et al. (2012) examined the impact of high-performance work systems on
294 US-based firms with no more than 500 employees. They (p. 487) found that,
“…leader perceptions of HR effectiveness are positively related to the use of
HPWSs and that this relationship is moderated both by the communication patterns
between the small-business leader and the HR consultant assigned to the firm and
the small-business leader’s HR knowledge.” Patel and Conklin (2012) examined
Entrepreneurial
Herramientas deReturns
gestión to
enManagement
un contexto Education37 41
empresarial
how firms (n = 145) with less than 100 employees might realize mutually reinforcing
effects of group culture on high performance work systems to improve employee
retention and increase perceived labor productivity. They (p. 205) found that: “…
employee retention does not mediate the effects of HPWS on perceived labor
productivity, but that mediation becomes significant and increases with greater
levels of group culture.”
Verreynne et al. (2011) investigated the interaction of human resources and capa-
bilities with firm performance in 50 Australian firms with less than 100 employees.
The researchers (p. 405) found that, “…higher performing firms had better rated
employment systems, with a cluster of human resource practices which included
greater informality, employee engagement and participation.” Messersmith and
Wales (2011) examined the effects of HPWSs and partnership philosophy on the
relationship between EO and sales growth in 119 young firms (less than 10 years
old). The results (p. 115) indicate, “…a non-significant relationship between EO
and firm growth. However, firms combining HPWS or partnership philosophy with
EO realized significantly higher levels of growth.” Chadwick et al. (2013) investi-
gated the boundary conditions of the relationship between firm-level high-investment
HR systems and objective labor productivity in 96 Canadian firms with less than
100 employees. They (p. 311) found that, “…the extent and nature of the influence
of high-investment human resource systems on objective small-firm labor produc-
tivity is contingent on internal (differentiation strategy and firm capital intensity)
and external boundary conditions (industry dynamism and industry growth).”
At the current time, it is difficult to establish what human resource management
practices should be implemented to increase new venture performance. To date,
most of the research focuses on existing companies with sizable numbers of employ-
ees rather than new ventures. Further, very little research investigates the human
resource practice – new venture performance link. Because there is little in the way
of testing predictive theories, the myriad of possible contingencies will need to be
studied piecemeal before practical evidence can be expected.
Management education has been criticized by a number of key scholars. Pfeffer and
Fong (2002, p. 79–80) note:
…Porter and McKibbin (1988, 64–65) noted that business school curricula were seen as too
focused on analytics, with insufficient emphasis on problem finding as contrasted with
problem solving and implementation (Leavitt, 1986), and as insufficiently integrative
across the various functional areas. More than a decade later, these criticisms remain rele-
vant. The themes - an overemphasis on analysis at the expense of both integration and
developing wisdom as well as leadership and interpersonal skills, or teaching the wrong
things in the wrong ways (and perhaps to the wrong people, or at least at the wrong time in
their careers) - have been picked up and expanded upon by others, including Henry
Mintzberg, who may have emerged as the most articulate critic of business school curricula
(e.g., Mintzberg, 1996; Mintzberg & Gosling, 2002; Mintzberg & Lampel, 2001), and
38 3 El espíritu empresarial de las pequeñas empresas: ¿Es una oruga
una mariposa?
Harold Leavitt (1989). Leavitt asserted that “we have built a weird, almost unimaginable
design for MBA-level education” that distorts those subjected to it into “critters with lop-
sided brains, icy hearts, and shrunken souls”. (1989, p. 39)
Pfeffer and Fong (2002, p. 80) review the returns to management education for
management students and find:
When we examine the actual effects of business schools on the two outcomes of most
relevance and importance, the careers of their graduates and the knowledge they produce,
the picture is reasonably bleak. There is little evidence that mastery of the knowledge
acquired in business schools enhances people's careers, or that even attaining the MBA
credential itself has much effect on graduates' salaries or career attainment.
Despite the criticism of business education there is probably much greater reason
to believe in its merits for middle managers than it is for would-be entrepreneurs.
For one thing at least, it helps people get better higher-paying jobs in the middle
management structures of medium and large–scale organizations.
The extent to which management education provides value to entrepreneurs has
also been questioned by a number of scholars. Chia (1996, p. 410) indicates a failure
of management education to encourage an entrepreneurial imagination.
Business schools…unwittingly propagate a thought style and a mental attitude that pays far
too much regard to conventional academic priorities of analytical rigor at the expense of a
loss of imagination and resourcefulness in dealing with practical concerns.
Some say that experience, and not education, is the best teacher. Current thinking
would be more convincing if people were at least able to learn from experience.
If our intellectual models are basically sound, then we should be able to reduce our
entrepreneurial experience into useful learning.
Bates (1990) examined a large sample of small US businesses and found that
managerial experience did not influence small firm survival. Stuart and Abetti
(1990) investigated 150 new US technology-based firms and found a factor that
included entrepreneurial experience and the previous management level (p < 0.01)
to positively influence firm performance. Brüderl et al. (1992) surveyed 1,849
founders of German new ventures and found that industry-specific experience
reduces new venture fatality (p < 0.05), but prior self-employment experience had
no impact. Using the same database, Brüderl and Preisendörfer (2000) observe that
prior managerial experience has a positive influence (p < 0.05) in fast growing firms.
Prior self-employment experience does not have an impact. Westhead and Cowling
A ContingencydeApproach41
Herramientas gestión en un contexto 41
empresarial
(1995) examined 227 UK-based technology firms and found that prior managerial
experience had no influence on firm performance.
Gimeno et al. (1997) surveyed 1,547 US-based entrepreneurs and found that
prior managerial (p < 0.10) and entrepreneurial experiences (p < 0.10) positively
influence new venture economic performances, but did not influence survival.
Chrisman and McMullan (2004) surveyed 159 US-based clients of Small Business
Development Centers and found that previous entrepreneurship experience had no
influence on new venture growth. Colombo and Grilli (2005) examined 506 new
technology based firms in Italy and found that prior entrepreneurship experience
influences growth (p < 0.05). Prior management experience was not found to have a
statistically significant impact on growth. West and Noel (2009) investigated 83
US-based new firms and found that previous founder start-up experience had no
impact on new venture performance. Further, they did not find a relationship
between the relatedness of industry knowledge gained through previous experiences
of the new venture CEO and venture performance.
Particularly when we take into consideration the weak p values in the positive
findings, experience appears to be an indifferent teacher of entrepreneurial prowess.
A Contingency Approach
Hopefully, the field may be able to develop the small business theory of entrepre-
neurship into contingency theory that predicts which types and amounts of manage-
ment knowledge will support entrepreneurs in various contexts. Gadenne’s (1998)
search for common management practices in small firms across a number of indus-
tries provides some support for this contention. He (p. 48) found that:
…different management practices or strategies are associated with small firm performance
across major industry types…In the retail industry it would appear that performance is posi-
tively related to a value for money factor (which includes the pricing of products lower than
competitors, emphasizing cost reduction and high sales turnover, and checking quality of
products); and negatively related to a financial leverage factor (including high usage of
outside borrowed funds, and searching for cheaper sources of finance). In the service indus-
try, performance appears to be positively related to an employee relations factor (related to
involvement of employees in decision-making, emphasis on a reward/discipline system and
staff training, and assessment of employees' job satisfaction and performance); and nega-
tively related to both financial leverage and high investment in working capital. In the man-
ufacturing industry, performance would appear to be positively related to a competitor
advantage factor (relating to pricing products lower than competitors and acquiring knowl-
edge of competitors' activities); and negatively related to financial leverage; yet positively
associated with reliance on professional financial advice.
Along these (contingency theory) lines, it may be useful to investigate new ven-
ture outcomes that combine venture-specific knowledge with management knowl-
edge. For example, an individual contemplating launching a restaurant might be
best served by completing a culinary education with some management program-
ming on the side.
42 3 El espíritu empresarial de las pequeñas empresas: ¿Es una oruga
una mariposa?
Conclusion
The main purpose of this chapter is to argue that a general theoretical and conceptual
model underlies much of entrepreneurship research, entrepreneurship teaching and
entrepreneurship practice in today’s world. It is argued, in part because entrepre-
neurship has been monopolized by the business discipline, that the small business
model of entrepreneurship is in effect an implicit general theory dominating and
directing the field of entrepreneurship. It is argued that the small business theory is
often treated as self-evident and that it sometimes even takes the form of a simple
tautology. However, when the evidence is gathered, there is little to demonstrate the
power of the small business approach to entrepreneurship. If anything, one is prob-
ably left wondering why business knowledge cannot as yet be shown to be more
practical. Furthermore, education in business seems to be of limited usefulness to
entrepreneurs. Finally, one would expect at a minimum that culturally implicit mod-
els of entrepreneurship as small business would be useful to guide learning from
experience. Again, the evidence fails to support the small business model. Eventually
however, one may hope that contingency theories are developed around the func-
tional areas of business to enable better understanding of when to use what business
tools. In any case, some sort of practical, predictive theorizing is unavoidable if we
are to avoid endless trial and error data collection. While the small business para-
digm provides some direction to researchers it is still fundamentally trying to
replace theorizing with semi-random evidence gathering. It remains a positivistic
approach to the science of entrepreneurship.
Herramientas de gestión en un contexto 43
empresarial
Chapter 4
The Positivistic Social Science
of Entrepreneurship
Abstract We may want to question the general usefulness of business tools and
teaching for enhancing entrepreneurial performance, but what about the rest of entre-
preneurial science – what does it have to offer? Entrepreneurship as a positivistic
social science has been advancing our knowledge base, one piece at a time, on how
to more successfully develop businesses. How difficult is it to tap this knowledge?
Theories that are used by entrepreneurial science tend to be used for the general
guidance of researchers. New fields like entrepreneurship typically lack much the-
ory of their own and therefore have to borrow ideas from other fields. As a field
matures, its researchers draw from both endogenous theory and exogenous theory
alike. Recently, Kenworthy and McMullan (2012) reviewed a comprehensive list of
empirical studies over the life of a number of top entrepreneurship journals includ-
ing: the Journal of Business Venturing, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, and
the Journal of Small Business Management. According to the findings, 95 % of the
theories claimed by researchers to be guiding their studies was found to have origi-
nated in another academic discipline. The dominant suppliers of 140 theories used
to guide a sample of recent empirical studies were from the fields of: strategic man-
agement, psychology, sociology and economics. Although a few theories were ref-
erenced more frequently, most theories were used only once across the timeframe of
the sample. In the 1980s it was rare for a researcher to mention a guiding theory. By
2012, almost half of these researchers were citing theories behind their chosen
hypotheses.
Overwhelmingly, in the empirical studies where theories are referenced, the the-
ories are used only to justify the formulation of hypotheses. It is not as if the hypoth-
eses are uniquely derived from the theories, but rather that they are merely consistent
with cited theories, if that. The so-called testing is certainly not critical testing in a
Popperian sense. Hypotheses are tested but the results are not formally used to eval-
uate the practicality of the theory within an entrepreneurial context. The researchers
may assume that the testing of hypotheses generated from theories puts the theory
to test. However, the question of whether imported theories are applicable in an
entrepreneurial context goes both unasked and unanswered. The theories that are
referenced are not actively challenged. Once evidence is gathered on the validity of
hypotheses the research exercise is complete. The studies are overwhelmingly left
unreplicated. Even constructive replication is uncommon. Evidence is not com-
pounded to weigh the merit of the theories. In a real sense, one might say the field
of entrepreneurship uses a minimalist approach to theory testing.
When a strong predictive theory is heavily tested using this minimalist strat-
egy the results can be strange and surprising. It may be a situation of using weak
methodology to test strong predictive theory. A case in point is the program of test-
ing that has been conducted on human capital theory. Most importantly, human
capital theory is a highly credible economic theory that makes real predictions about
the value of education. In effect, it boldly predicts that there will be a positive return
on investment in formal education – all education everywhere. It is a Nobel prize-
Propuestas, no teorías 45
Entrepreneurial Strategy
Practitioner Implications
Drawing from the entire entrepreneurial strategy section of Shane’s book might lead
an entrepreneur to be mindful of quite a few factors. As a potential entrepreneur, one
should not be concerned about starting out small because many successful people
begin that way. It may make more sense to buy an existing firm than start a new firm.
One should remain flexible during the search for a winning strategy, basing it on a
single product, targeting a single market at the outset. One should establish what-
ever legal barriers possible (e.g. patents, trademarks) and attain desirable certifica-
tions. If one can survive the early years, one should work towards introducing other
innovative products. One should also focus on growth and the development of econ-
omies of scale, acquiring strategic alliances whenever possible.
Propuestas, no teorías 47
Industry Choice
Practitioner Implications
A potential entrepreneur should carefully examine the industry in which s/he wishes
to establish a new venture as some industries are more munificent than others. One
might select a large and fragmented industry that is innovative, profitable and grow-
ing, and as yet not dominated by any particular design. One should avoid industries
in which large firms have a dominant position in R&D, advertising and distribution.
Further, one should avoid capital-intensive industries and industries characterized
by economies of scale advantages.
Shane (2003) identifies 12 different factors that fall under the organizing process
for a new venture: employment experience; planning; legal entity; team size;
number of employees; selection of employees; direct ties; indirect ties; organiza-
tional policies and procedures; communication mechanisms; specialization of
labor; and, monitoring. Shane’s propositional knowledge included the following
three points.
…new company human resources practices typically have their origin in founders’ employ-
ment models. (p. 220)
…planning enhances the development and performance of start-ups after founding…
(p.222)
…newly established corporations are more likely to survive than partnerships or sole
proprietorships. (p. 235)
48 4 La ciencia social positivista del espíritu empresarial
Practitioner Implications
Practitioner Implications
The source of start-up funding is likely to be from one’s personal savings and assets.
As such, one should prepare in advance to be an entrepreneur by controlling
Propuestas, no teorías 49
personal spending and acquiring some financial capital. Even if one expects to
acquire external funding, one should expect to use personal savings and assets in a
new venture. One should note that the relatively few ventures that are well-financed
in early stages succeed more often. The external financing may come with costs
such as behavior controls established by external investors.
One should acquire a good education as well as obtain experience in manage-
ment and other entrepreneurial ventures before launching a new venture. One should
learn the target industry of the new venture and find an opportunity with a number
of desirable characteristics. One should also prepare a quality business plan and
ensure that its financial projections are reasonably conservative.
Entrepreneurial Psychology
Shane (2003) identified the following 14 factors that can be considered as psycho-
logical in nature: extraversion; agreeableness; need for achievement; A-type person-
alities; risk-taking; tolerance of ambiguity; desire for independence; locus of
control; intrinsic motivation; Protestantism; self-efficacy; overconfidence;
representativeness; and, intuition. Three of the propositions that Shane advanced are
presented below.
…people higher in extraversion are more likely to exploit opportunities than people lower
in extraversion because they are better able to assemble resources and organize under
conditions of information asymmetry and uncertainty. (p. 98)
Agreeableness is an aspect of personality that incorporates the attributes of friendli-
ness, socially conformity, compliance, flexibility, tendency to trust, cooperativeness, ten-
dency to forgive, tolerance, softheartedness and courteousness (Barrick and Mount 1991).
People possessing this aspect of personality are less likely than other people to exploit
opportunities. (p. 99)
Firm founders who are higher in need for achievement appear to have faster growing
ventures than firm founders who are lower in need for achievement. (p. 102)
Practitioner Implications
Practitioner Implications
One should attempt to identify a business opportunity that will make current income
pale by comparison. Alternatively, one should not fear becoming unemployed as it
might provide the impetus to start a new venture. One should acquire a good
education and marry a spouse who is committed to full-time employment.
One should acquire general business, as well as start-up, experience. One should
seek out marketing, product development and management, rather than finance and
accounting experiences in an industry of one’s choice.
It would be beneficial to have entrepreneurs for parents, but if such is not the
case, one should find friends who are. One should be aware that the optimal new
venturing window is between 25 and 44 years of age, with the earlier years better
for getting start-up experience, and the later years for capitalizing on it.
Finally, one should develop a social network and increase one’s social status,
with further education being the most likely path towards both goals.
expected. When one takes the further simplifying step of turning the propositions
into action implications, which was undertaken in this chapter, the resulting number
of practical implications is something that can be meaningfully contemplated in an
afternoon by an intelligent person.
The limitations of Shane’s general theory are threefold: limitations that originate
from the sheer complexity of the task; limitations that are a result of problems
within the underlying science of entrepreneurship; and, limitations that are a result
of Shane’s methods. The process of reducing massive amounts of complexity will
understandably result in mistakes and errors. The fact that entrepreneurial science
is a formative social science means that the base findings are often unreliable.
Finally, Shane makes the following choices with his method that should make us
more wary yet.
• There is inevitable subjectivity in Shane’s choice of relevant factors. For instance,
Shane missed entrepreneurial creativity as a potential influence on venture per-
formance. This is more than a small oversight as will become evident by Chap. 6.
What other potentially important factors were missing from his overview? How
much larger than the 83 factors listed here would there be in a more comprehen-
sive list, compiled, for instance, by a group of scholars and not just one?
• Shane provides only supportive data behind his propositions presumably to sim-
plify the task. Studies that yielded non-supportive or contrary data are omitted.
There are propositions in his list that have been well tested, but on balance are
not well supported. Given that there is a recognized bias against negative find-
ings in the management literature (c.f. Fanelli 2011), ignoring those negative
results that are reported is doubly serious.
• Shane appears to be content to make his case for relevance based on p values
which only provide evidence of the probability of a relationship between two
variables. One might be able to say with some confidence that factor A may be
related to a measure of entrepreneurial success, and maybe even from the struc-
ture of some studies to imply some confidence in the direction of causation.
However, p values are not evidence of the amount of outcome variance explained
by the factor under consideration. A practitioner also needs to know if factor A
has a big enough impact on different measures of entrepreneurial success to jus-
tify his/her attention. (It should be noted that in most cases, published data is
limited to p values.)
• Shane treats all the propositions as equally important. A proposition that has 1
weak supporting study behind it is given par status with one that has 20 or more
supportive studies. Neither are studies weighted by quality of methodology nor
strength of findings.
• Shane provides no guidance on how to combine propositions. The propositions
are all stand-alone other than for being grouped by type.
52 4 La ciencia social positivista del espíritu empresarial
• Shane ignores the fact that his propositional base of findings is theoretically
impoverished, meaning that inferences (including the action implications
included here) are drawn with guesswork. Technically, inferences from each
proposition are limited to the tight set of circumstances surrounding each find-
ing, or more properly still, to the actual data itself. Without theory around every
individual proposition, findings are marginally interpretable, at best.
• There is no rationale for why more propositions cannot be added and relation-
ships between variables not reformulated (e.g. from linear to curvilinear or con-
tingency relationships).
• Shane’s General Theory is not likely a general theory or even a theory since it
lacks the hallmarks of a theory. For one thing, the theory appears to be no more
than a list of unrelated, stand-alone hypotheses or propositions. Weick (1995,
p. 389) states that, “…stand-alone hypotheses … are not theory because authors
remain silent about the reason for his choice of hypotheses. why these hypothe-
ses and not other ones are being stated.”
• Shane’s theory is not testable and therefore, not really a scientific theory. There
is no over-arching assumptive base to his theory or any core propositions or core
implications that can be tested and rejected.
• An inventory of 80 plus stand-alone propositions would tax even the best memo-
ries. What can’t be remembered is hard to use.
• Finally, with such a cumbersome model it would be extraordinarily difficult if
not impossible to check the model for additivity. How would it ever be possible
to determine empirically how much performance variance could be collectively
explained by the model as a whole? Without an ability to calculate the additive
contribution of the different independent variables it becomes impossible to
determine the practical value of the model.
entrepreneurship students may be less inclined than many other post-secondary stu-
dents towards any sort of science instruction.
The second issue that hinders the effective transmission of scientific knowledge
is the nature of social science research. It is subject to great deal of philosophical
and methodological debate. The disciplines of management science, in particular,
are prone to fads – research streams and theories come and go regardless of their
empirical status. Replication studies are hard to get published and when they are
published, the findings often fail to support original findings (c.f. Evanschitzky
et al. 2007). In entrepreneurship, there is also a need to demonstrate stronger effect
sizes (which is starting to happen – Connelly et al. 2010) in order to provide more
defensible findings.
A third issue also relates to the nature of research in entrepreneurship. A substan-
tial portion of research to date has not been explicitly theory driven. Atheoretical or
propositional research is problematic for a variety of reasons. It may typically be
method and context bound. It is subject to the problem of induction (Hume 1748;
Popper 1935). It is also subject to the problem of drawing appropriate inferences.
Here, Popper (1935, p. 88) argues, “…however rich a collection of statements that
might be collected in this way, it could never add up to a science. A science needs
point of view, and theoretical problems.”
A fourth issue is the extent to which entrepreneurship textbooks provide instruc-
tion based on state of the art of scientific knowledge. Edelman et al. (2008) provide
evidence that the entrepreneurship curriculum may not teach needed skills or con-
tent. Rubin and Dierdorff (2009) warn that our educational content must be valid
and closely relevant to workplace needs or else students will not develop necessary
competencies and hence, will suffer from weak performance.
A fifth issue is the training of entrepreneurship educators. Many instructors are
not terminally educated. For a variety of reasons, it is common for management
schools to hire adjunct instructors with course-based MBA training to teach entrepre-
neurship courses. Of those instructors who are terminally educated, very few of them
are formally educated in the scientific field of entrepreneurship (Brush et al. 2003).
A sixth issue is the willingness of entrepreneurship instructors to teach scientific
findings to students. Some instructors may view the outcomes of such endeavors as
career-limiting or damaging.
Conclusion
being no more than a list of independent, unrelated propositions, and in that sense is
not really a theory. Moreover, it is not directly testable so therefore not scientific.
What follows is an attempt to build a general scientific theory of entrepreneurship
that doesn’t fall prey to so many of the criticisms listed here. Not unlike Shane’s
model, the GTEC uses our existing brick-like knowledge that positivistic methodol-
ogy has provided, but this time the evidence is used to support the advancement of
an integrative, predictive theory of entrepreneurial performance.
Propuestas, no teorías 55
Part III
A General Scientific Theory
of Entrepreneurial Creativity
Chapter 5
Modernizing Schumpeter: Toward
a New General Theory of Entrepreneurship
Gartner (2001) is likely right to propose that no one general theory can account
for the entire range of entrepreneurial phenomena. There is no reason to assume,
however, that some entrepreneurship theories cannot be much more general in
nature than others – some theories may only explain a single limited phenomena,
others will hopefully be developed to explain many and varied phenomena. This
book represents an attempt to advance a more general theory of entrepreneurship.
In order to engage in the theory building process, this section highlights key pieces
of related literature. It begins with a discussion of Hofer and Bygrave’s (1992)
important characteristics of the entrepreneurial process. It then briefly describes
some concerns about the nature of social science theory. Finally, it describes the
various aspects of the theory of creative entrepreneurship.
In 1992, Hofer and Bygrave (p. 14) asserted that, “If researchers could develop
a model or theory to explain entrepreneurial processes, they would have the key
that unlocks the mystery of entrepreneurship.” The scholars (p. 17, italics in origi-
nal) proposed the following nine characteristics of the entrepreneurial process: “It
is initiated by an act of human volition; it occurs at the level of the individual firm;
it involves a change of state; it involves a discontinuity; it is a holistic process; it is
a dynamic process; it is unique; it involves numerous antecedent variables; and its
outcomes are extremely sensitive to the initial conditions of these variables.” The
authors (p. 17) argue that, “Taken together, these characteristics create a set of
parameters and criteria that will have to be met by any ‘ideal’ model of
entrepreneurship.”
The general theory of entrepreneurial creativity proposed here appears to meet
Hofer and Bygrave’s (1992) criteria. First, the theory is initiated by an act of human
volition. The role of the entrepreneur is characterized as central to the process. The
process involves the creation of an individual firm through some stage development
model or another. Thus the work involves a change of state. In fact, in Schumpeter’s
model no change occurs without the entrepreneur. The creativity process implies
discontinuity, at least when new combinations are involved, because they may more
Developing an Entrepreneurship Theory59
generally change the way business is conducted over time. The idea of new combi-
nations, whether of small or great significance, is important to the modified theory
of creative entrepreneurship, as it builds upon the work of Schumpeter. The new
theory, however, treats creativity as not only generic to new combinations but also
to growth and development as well. One of the main advances of this modified view
of Schumpeter is the press towards more holistic treatments of the entrepreneur, in
this case as suggested by the Sternberg model.
The entrepreneurial process is dynamic because it is grounded in the
Schumpeterian model in the first place and thereafter, in the continuing creativity
of the entrepreneur over time. The theory is unique mainly in the sense that
Schumpeter’s theory is unique. The modified theory is, arguably, an embellish-
ment of Schumpeter’s ideas. At this point, it should not be difficult to argue that
the theory, as it is currently provisioned (with a number of creative resources),
involves numerous antecedent variables. Finally, it is straightforward to argue that
the outcomes of the theory (i.e. entrepreneurial performance) are extremely
sensitive to the initial conditions of these variables (i.e. the creative capacity of the
entrepreneur) because that is the major prediction of the theory and finding of the
book.
The nature of scientific theory is a matter of considerable debate. The field of
management has been at the forefront of deliberation regarding social science the-
ory with related forums in Academy of Management Review [1989, 14(4)] and
Administrative Science Quarterly [1995, 40(3)]. Sutton and Staw (1995, p. 372)
argue that, “Though there is conflict about what theory is and should be, there is
more consensus about what theory is not.” The authors (p. 371) claim that,
“…references, data, variables, diagrams, and hypotheses are not theory.” In
response, Weick (1995, p. 385) asserts that:
These substitutes for theory may result from lazy theorizing in which people try to graft
theory onto stark sets of data. But they may also represent interim struggles in which people
intentionally inch toward stronger theories. The products of laziness and intense struggles
may look the same and may consist of references, data, lists, diagrams, and hypotheses. To
label these five as “not theory” makes sense if the problem is laziness and incompetence.
But ruling out those same five may slow inquiry if the problem is theoretical development
still in its early stages.
Weick (1995, p. 385) also emphasizes the difficulties associated with develop-
ment of strong theory: “…most theories approximate rather than realize the condi-
tions necessary for a strong theory.” Entrepreneurship scholars, Bygrave and Hofer
(1991, p. 91), provide a brief discussion of what should constitute theory in the field
of entrepreneurship:
…theories are based on a limited number of underlying assumptions and have various
different types of basic structural characteristics including: (1) the number of dependent
variables involved (one vs. many); (2) the number of independent variables involved (one
vs. many); (3) the complexity of the variables involved (single-attribute constructs vs.
multi-attribute constructs); and (4) the complexity of the relationships involved (linear vs.
curvilinear vs. discontinuous).
60 5 Modernizar a Schumpeter: Hacia una nueva teoría general del espíritu
empresarial
Ultimately, the theory developed here is generally aligned with arguments
presented by Hofer and Bygrave (1992) and Bygrave and Hofer (1991). Hence, the
theory involves one complex independent variable and one complex dependent vari-
able. The relationship between these variables is straightforward as an explanation,
but somewhat more complex as a process. Finally, the model presents an environ-
mental moderating variable.
Joseph Schumpeter’s entire professional life was spent in elaborating ideas about
the linkages amongst creativity, entrepreneurship and capitalism. The impact of his
intellectual endeavors has been tremendous, according to historian Thomas McCraw
(2007, p. 497):
Within universities, Schumpeter’s strongest influence has appeared not in economics
departments but in departments of sociology, political science and history, where his writ-
ings are frequently assigned. And far more than in any of these four traditional disciplines,
his ideas have thoroughly pervaded the curricula of post-graduate business schools all over
the world. These schools are much more numerous today (by a factor of about seven) than
when he died, and research within their environs has grown far more rigorous. By the
twenty-first century, every reputable business school offered numerous courses devoted to
entrepreneurship, innovation, and business strategy, and many housed full-blown depart-
ments devoted to these subjects.
Bull and Willard (1993, p. 186) have concluded that Schumpeter’s definition of
entrepreneurship remains as good as any available:
Recent attempts at redefinition use concepts and words like ‘fundamental change’ (Murray,
1984), ‘innovative, flexible, dynamic, risk-taking, creative’ (Stevenson and Gumpert, 1985)
and ‘alertness’ (Kirtzner, 1985). To some extent these descriptions add insight but, upon
closer examination, merely rephrase the Schumpeter definition. We argue that Schumpeter’s
definition is adequately descriptive and discriminatory for academic purposes. There are no
compelling reasons for modifying it.
2. The introduction of superior new business combinations that create new pre-
ferred patterns of flow occasionally disrupt the circular flow:
The carrying out of new combinations we call ‘enterprise’; the individuals whose function
it is to carry them out we call ‘entrepreneurs’. (p. 74)
According to Rosenberg (1976, p. 66), “Schumpeter was quite explicit that his
analysis was only intended to apply to major innovations of a kind which involved
significant shifts to an entirely new production function.” Schumpeter’s entrepre-
neur was a grand figure who exerted substantial influence on economic equilibrium.
In Schumpeter’s (1908, p. 8) words:
… the development of human culture and especially of knowledge proceeds in jumps to an
even greater extent; impetuous leaps are mixed with periods of stagnation, inspiring hopes
are singed with bitter disappointments, and, if the new may base itself on the old, progress
is not constant.
Schumpeter (1911, [1934]) asserted that the economic development process can
be divided into three clearly distinct stages: invention, innovation or commercializa-
tion; and, imitation. He distinguished a sharp contrast between invention and inno-
vation. Rosenberg (1976, p. 67) states that to Schumpeter, “…the making of the
invention and the carrying out of the corresponding innovation are, economically
and sociologically, two entirely different things.”
From Schumpeter’s perspective, entrepreneurs and innovations are the keys to
economic growth. McCraw (2007, p. 356) supports this view:
It seemed plain to Schumpeter that continuous technical innovation and organizational
remodeling, not monopolistic profits, accounted for the prosperity of most great compa-
nies…. Pushing his analysis to its limits, Schumpeter identifies capitalist entrepreneurship
with technological progress itself. As a matter of historical record, they were ‘essentially
one and the same thing’, the first being ‘the propelling force’ of the second.
Schumpeter, el espíritu empresarial y la 63
creatividad
The criterion variable in Schumpeter’s theory of economic growth is focused on
one type of business outcome: new combinations. Schumpeter (1934, p. 66) charac-
terized new combinations, or innovations, by type:
This concept (new combinations) covers the following five case: (1) The introduction of a
new good – that is one with which consumers are not yet familiar – or of a new quality of a
good. (2) The introduction of a new method of production, that is not yet tested by experi-
ence in the branch of manufacture concerned, which need by no means be founded upon a
discovery scientifically new, and can also exist in a new way of handling a commodity com-
mercially. (3) The opening of a new market that is a market into which the particular branch
of manufacture of the country in question has not previously entered, whether or not this
market has existed before. (4) The conquest of a new source of supply of raw materials or
half-manufactured goods, again irrespective of whether this source already exists or
whether it has first to be created. (5) The carrying out of the new organization of any indus-
try, like the creation of a monopoly position (for example through trustification) or the
breaking up of a monopoly position.
In Schumpeter’s (1911, [1934]) worldview, there are two types of people: hedo-
nistic economic beings and energetic entrepreneurs. The bulk of the population,
characterized as non-entrepreneurial hedonists, is consumed by the desire for utility
maximization and egocentric ends. According to Sanatarelli and Pesciarelli (1990,
p. 685), non-entrepreneurs dominate the static portion of the economy: “In the stat-
ics (circular flow) economic agents choose their plans of action on the basis of given
environmental constraints, information and preferences.”
Schumpeter’s energetic entrepreneur – his predictor variable – is an unusual,
atypically motivated individual who engages in a relatively undefined business
development process in the dynamic portion of the economy. Regarding the eco-
nomic interests, Sanatarelli and Pesciarelli (1990, p. 685) state: “In the dynamics
the concept of rationality is a much broader one: in choosing ‘new combinations’
economic agents ignore environmental and historical constraints; these they trans-
form into variables.”
With regard to entrepreneurial motivation, Sanatarelli and Pesciarelli (1990,
p. 685) find that, “Whereas in the static’s the motive is profit, in dynamics it com-
prises a set of goals. This is not to imply that in Schumpeter’s early writings entre-
preneurs are not profit-attracted; simply that profits are a means to achieve further
ends… and are not, as in the case of adaptive types, an end in themselves.”
Schumpeter (1934, p. 93) emphasizes the following three motives of energetic
entrepreneurs:
1. First of all, there is the dream and the will to found a private kingdom, usually,
though not necessarily, also a dynasty.
2. Then there is the will to conquer: the impulse to fight, to prove oneself superior
to others, to succeed for the sake, not of the fruits of success, but of success
itself.
3. Finally, there is the joy of creating, of getting things done, or simply of exercising
one’s energy and ingenuity.
64 5 Modernizar a Schumpeter: Hacia una nueva teoría general del espíritu
empresarial
Creative Creative Entrepreneurial
Entrepreneur Process Outcomes
Creative/
Creative Destructive –
New
Entrepreneurial indeterminate
Combinations
Motivation with many
unknowns
Creativity
The field of creativity contains at least ten categories of theories (Kozbelt et al.
2010). The category of interest here is economic in nature because economic theo-
ries, “…offer testable hypotheses about creative efforts.” (Kozbelt et al. 2010). Only
one of the theories, the investment theory of creativity (Sternberg and Lubart 1991),
focuses a part of its attention at the micro-economic level. Sternberg and Lubart
(1999, p.3), include entrepreneurship in the realm of creative endeavors: “If one
wanted to select the best novelist, artist, entrepreneur, or even chief executive
officer, one would most likely want someone who is creative.”
The investment theory of creativity (ITC) is utilized as a platform upon which to
build a general theory of entrepreneurial creativity for a number of reasons. The first
reason is that there is a great deal of empirical support for the relevance of creativity
to new venture outcomes (please see Chap. 6). The second reason is that the ITC is
a confluence theory, i.e. it indicates that multiple factors must converge in order to
produce creativity. Many prominent creativity scholars agree on the importance of
multi-factor confluence (Sternberg and Lubart 2006). Third, extant empirical
research has yielded support for the ITC (Sternberg 2012).
The ITC is presented in Exhibit 5.2. Each of the six factors is described by
Sternberg (2012, p. 5–6) below.
Intellectual X X Thinking X X X
Knowledge Personality Motivation Environment
Abilities Styles
Creative
Outcome(s)
Intellectual Abilities
Knowledge
Concerning knowledge, on the one hand, one needs to know enough about a field to
move it forward. One can’t move a field forward if one doesn’t know its current
limitations. On the other hand, extensive knowledge about a field can result in a
closed and entrenched perspective, resulting in a person being stuck in current
perspectives (Adelson 1984; Frensch and Sternberg 1989). Thus, one needs to
decide to use one’s relevant knowledge as a bridge and not a barrier.
Thinking Styles
Thinking styles are related to creativity (Kogan 1973). With regard to thinking
styles, a legislative style is particularly important for creativity, that is, a preference
for thinking and a decision to think in new ways (Sternberg 1997; Zhang and
Sternberg 2006). Preference to think creatively needs to be distinguished from abil-
ity to think creatively. To think creatively it is also helpful to think globally as well
as locally, distinguishing the forest from the trees and thereby recognizing which
questions are important and which ones are not.
Creativida 67
d
Personality
Motivation
Environment
Finally, one needs an environment that is supportive and rewarding of creative ideas
(Sternberg and Lubart 1995; Sternberg and Williams 1996). One could have all of
the internal resources needed to think creatively, but without some environmental
support (such as a forum for proposing those ideas), the creativity that a person has
within him or her might never be displayed. Different cultures support creativity
differentially and may even have different conceptions of what constitutes creativity
(Lubart 2010) so it is important to take the environment into account when assessing
creativity.
The nature of confluence in the ITC is worthy of mention here. According to
Sternberg (2012, p. 6), the thresholds and interactions of the six factors have yet to
be discovered:
Concerning the confluence of components, creativity is hypothesized to involve more than
a simple sum of a person’s level on each component (Sternberg and Lubart 1991). First,
there may be thresholds for some components (e.g., knowledge) below which creativity is
not possible, regardless of the levels on other components. Second, partial compensation
may occur in which a strength on one component (e.g., motivation) counteracts a weakness
68 5 Modernizar a Schumpeter: Hacia una nueva teoría general del espíritu
empresarial
on another component (e.g., environment). Third, interactions may also occur between
components, such as intelligence and motivation, in which high levels on both components
could multiplicatively enhance creativity.
The following section uses Sternberg and Lubart’s (1991) investment theory of
creativity in order to develop a general theory of entrepreneurial creativity. The
rationale for making adjustments to the ITC is located in the growing body of evi-
dence that creativity is domain specific. Baer (2012, p. 2), a scholar investigating
domain specificity, finds that:
…the evidence for domain specificity has only grown stronger (for a recent summary, see
Baer 2010). The question is not one of whether or not the cognitive skills that underlie
creativity are domain-specific – to some extent everyone now agrees that they are – but
rather whether or not there are any creative thinking skills that are truly domain general.
Innovation
Level of Development
Schumpeter put great stock in the role of a relatively small number of individuals
(i.e. highly-innovative, high-growth entrepreneurs) in order to fully explain eco-
nomic development. He ignored, or heavily discounted, a number of potentially
Creativida 71
d
relevant political and economic institutions (e.g. universities) and other individual
roles (e.g. central bankers). A modern reconceptualization of Schumpeter’s under-
socialized perspective would recast the entrepreneur as only one economic agent
amongst many agents and institutions. The reconceptualization provides, among
other things, a foundation for analysis of factors that explain regional variations in
entrepreneurial intensity.
Numerous scholars (c.f. David McClelland; Zoltan Acs and David Audretsch)
have investigated regional variations in entrepreneurial intensity. McClelland’s par-
ticular approach, for example, was to emphasize variations in need for achievement
between societies as a key factor for distinguishing have and have-not regions.
There are numerous other factors that might encourage more entrepreneurial cre-
ativity, including parenting practices, schooling practices, post-secondary educa-
tional opportunities and, career opportunities. It is conceivable that societies that
encourage more of their creative talent toward new venturing will (1) tend to empha-
size the value of entrepreneurship and (2) provide supporting institutions and (3)
generally remove barriers to success.
The Model
Environmental Supportiveness
(for example)
1. Dynamism
2. Heterogeneity
3. Hostility
Conclusion
The idea that Schumpeter’s model of entrepreneurship from his early work might be
used as a basis for a modern theory of entrepreneurship has been suggested by a
number of scholars over time. Schumpeter’s model is carefully presented to demon-
strate both its strengths and limitations. A model of creative resources is provided as
a first step towards the modernization of Schumpeter’s theory.
The changing knowledge base within the discipline of creativity can continue to
inform the content of creative entrepreneurship over time. As the concept has been
elaborated, creative entrepreneurship is composed of: creative entrepreneurial peo-
ple, creative processes, creative outcomes and creative environments. The conflu-
ence of creative entrepreneurial resources suggests that the creative aspects of a
number of resources might be jointly required for effective entrepreneurial perfor-
mance (i.e. intellectual abilities, knowledge, styles of thinking, personality, motiva-
tion, and environment). The threshold aspect of in the Sternberg model suggests that
minimal amounts of the different creative resources might be required to be entre-
preneurially effective.
In practice, creative decisions may be often required as entrepreneurs do not have
the time and/or resources to assimilate expert routines in many problem areas.
Conceivably, there are so many areas of expertise required to develop a business
concept into a successful, on-going enterprise, that one person cannot expect to
learn all of them in a timely manner. More creative entrepreneurs will be expected
to outperform less creative, over the entire cycle of business development, growth
and financial performance.
Chapter 6
The Core Evidence
Pre-venturing
Numerous scholars have examined the extent to which individual creativity influ-
ences entrepreneurial intentions. The articles that focus on the relationship between
personal creativity and intention to start a new venture are displayed below in
Table 6.1. An example of the type of research in this area is the Vesalainen and
Pihkala (1999) study, which involved the participation of 2,899 people in Finland.
Six percent (174 people) had a clear intention to start a new venture within 1 year.
Those with entrepreneurial intentions were asked ten 3-point questions on each of
several scales: appealing aspects of their working environment; appealing rewards
from work; and, the degree to which an entrepreneurial career would provide the
Pre-venturing
Table 6.1 Creativity and new venture intentionality
Related findings and level
Article Creativity measures Outcome measures Level of significance of significance
Hull et al. (1980) Creativity Claim of wanting to start a business Significant at 0.01 Need for achievement
3-item personality scale significant at 0.01;
(unspecified) propensity to take risk
significant at 0.01
Koh (1996) Innovativeness Measure of entrepreneurial Significant at 0.0001 Propensity to take risks
Researcher created instrument inclination in next 3 years significant at 0.0001;
tolerance of ambiguity
significant at 0.01
Vesalainen and Creativity Differing levels of intentionality Significant at 0.001
Pihkala (1999) Factor analysis generated towards starting a business
measure
Sagie and Elizur Inclination to provide innovative Distinguishing small business Significant at 0.05 Facing uncertainty
(1999) solutions to problems students from other business students significant at 0.001;
Achievement Motive and economics students calculating risks
Questionnaire (Elizur 1979; significant at 0.001
Shye 1978)
Singh and DeNoble Openness to experience Intention to become self-employed Positive but not significant
(2003) Saucier’s Mini-Markers Inventory
Baron and Markman Creative self-efficacy Intention to become an entrepreneur Not significant
(2005) NEO-FFI Scale (Costa and
McCrae 1992)
Frazier and Niehm Creativity Entrepreneurial intentions Significant at 0.000 (as Opportunity seeking
(2006, unpublished) Researchers created instrument reported in article) significant at 0.05
based on entrepreneurship
orientation (EO) literature
(continued)
75
76
Table 6.1 (continued)
Related findings and level
Article Creativity measures Outcome measures Level of significance of significance
Gurol and Atsan Innovativeness Distinguishing entrepreneurially- Significant at 0.002 Risk taking propensity
(2006) Jackson Personality Inventory inclined students from non-inclined significant at 0.001; locus
students of control significant at
0.001; need for
achievement significant at
0.01; tolerance for
ambiguity not significant
Hmieleski Proclivity for improvisation Entrepreneurial intentions Significant at 0.01
and Corbett (2006) Researchers created instrument
Zampetakis and Creativity Entrepreneurial intentions Significant at 0.001
Moustakis (2006) Researchers created instrument
Frank et al. (2007) Innovative orientation Entrepreneurial intentions Significant at 0.05 Need for achievement,
Researchers created instrument internal locus of control
77
78 6 Las pruebas
fundamentales
desired rewards. Factor analysis of the appealing rewards results yielded a ‘growth/
creativity’ factor. This factor included responses to a question on the value of using
one’s innovativeness and creativity; on the possibility to grow and learn; and on the
value of independence. This new factor variable was regressed against different
levels of intentionality, which was positive and statistically significant at the 0.001
level. The authors (p. 117) concluded: “Regarding entrepreneurial motivation, the
growth/creativity–dimension of valence appeared to function as the most powerful
ingredient of intentionality.”
The majority of the existing intentionality research indicates the presence of a
statistically significant relationship. Further, a meta-analysis undertaken by Zhao
et al. (2010) reported an effect size ( p̆ ) for openness to experience with intentional-
ity of 0.24. The effect size (p. 393) is the, “…estimated population effect size, after
correcting for measurement error in both the predictor and the criterion.”
Many of the new venture intentionality studies also examined and reported dif-
ferences in other personal characteristics related to creativity. The other characteris-
tics that appear to influence new venture intentionality are need for achievement and
propensity to take risk.
New Venturing
79
80
Table 6.2 (continued)
Related findings and level
Article Creativity measures Outcome measures Level of significance of significance
Cromie and O’Donaghue Creativity Distinguishing Significant at 0.001 Need for achievement,
(1992) General Enterprising Tendency entrepreneurs from locus of control and risk
Inventory managers taking significant at 0.001
Rosenfeld et al. (1993) Innovation and three subscales: Distinguishing Significant at 0.01
originality, efficiency and rule entrepreneurs from
conformity managers
Kirton Adaption-Innovation The efficiency subscale was
Inventory not significant
Engle et al. (1997) Innovativeness and three subscales: Distinguishing Innovation and originality Locus of control not
originality, efficiency and entrepreneurs from significant at 0.001; significant
conformity employees non-conformity significant
Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory at 0.05; efficiency not
significant
Hyrsky and Kangasharju Innovativeness Distinguishing founders Significant at 0.001
(1998) Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory from non-founders
Stewart et al. (1999) Preference for innovation Distinguishing Significant at 0.0001 Need for achievement
Innovation Scale of the Jackson entrepreneurs from significant at 0.0001;
Personality Inventory corporate managers risk-taking propensity
significant at 0.0001
81
82 6 The Core Evidence
This section examines the extent to which personal creativity influences four new
venture outcomes: survival, employment growth, financial performance and venture
innovativeness. A sub-section that investigates the level of personal creativity dif-
ferences between entrepreneurs and small business owners is included here.
A small amount of research has focused on the extent to which personal creativity
influences new venture survival. The articles that focus on the relationship between
personal creativity and new venture survival are displayed below in Table 6.3. An
The articles that focus on creativity level differences between individuals who
founded high-growth companies and those who founded low-growth companies
(i.e. small businesses) are displayed below in Table 6.4. The definition of small
business remains a contentious one. In the articles presented here, the researchers
provide explanations of how to distinguish the groups. For example, Carland et al.
(1988, p. 99) offer the following definitions:
Small Business Owner: An individual who establishes and manages a business for the prin-
cipal purpose of furthering personal goals; the business must be the primary source of income
and will consume the majority of one’s time and resources; the owner perceives the business
as an extension of his or her personality, intricately bound with family needs and desires;
Entrepreneur: An individual who establishes and manages a business for the principal
purpose of profit and growth; the entrepreneur is characterized principally by innovative
behavior and will employ strategic management practices in the business.
An example of the type of research in this area is the Stewart et al. (1999) study
that uses the innovation scale of the Jackson Personality Inventory to distinguish
entrepreneurs from small business owners. The authors (p. 204) find that, “Small
business owners also lack the same degree of preference for innovation. Given the
relative significance of innovativeness in entrepreneurs, it would appear that creativ-
ity necessitates extended risk, because it entails coping with the potential outcomes
that are associated with untried venues. Small business owners appear to lack this
coalition of creativity and risk-taking.”
Overall, the research findings suggest that the two groups differ in terms of level
of personal creativity. A number of the studies also report statistically-significant
differences between the two groups with respect to need for achievement and pro-
pensity to take risk.
84
Table 6.4 Creativity levels: entrepreneurs versus small business owners
Related findings
Article Creativity measures Outcome measures Level of significance and level of significance
Morris and Fargher (1974) Creativity Distinguishing owner-operators Significant at 0.01 Need for achievement
Geometric Patterns of high growth and low growth significant at 0.001
Test using the unique responses businesses
index (Wallach and Kogan 1965)
Carland et al. (1988) Preference for innovation Distinguishing entrepreneurs Statistical significance
Patchen Measure from small business owners suggested, but not
reported
Smith and Miner (1984) Personal innovations Distinguishing fast-growth Significant at 0.01 Self achievement
Miner Sentence Completion Scale entrepreneurs from slow-growth significant at 0.01
and an instrument created by the entrepreneurs
researchers
Smith and Miner (1985) Personal innovations Distinguishing fast-growth Significant at 0.01 Self achievement
Miner Sentence Completion Scale entrepreneurs from slow-growth significant at 0.01
and an instrument created by the entrepreneurs
researchers
Stewart et al. (1999) Preference for innovation Distinguishing entrepreneurs Significant at 0.01 Need for achievement
Innovation Scale of the Jackson from small business owners significant at 0.001;
Personality Inventory risk-taking propensity
The articles that focus on the relationship between personal creativity and new ven-
ture job creation are displayed below in Table 6.5. An example of the type of
research in this area is the Utsch and Rauch (2000) study, which used Patchen’s
(1965) interest in innovation scale to find a positive and statistically-significant rela-
tionship between innovativeness and new venture employment growth.
On balance, past research indicates a statistically significant relationship between
individual creativity and new venture employment growth. A meta-analysis that
might more effectively demonstrate the strength of relationship has not been under-
taken in this area.
Some of the articles also report a statistically-significant and positive relation-
ship between need for achievement and employment growth.
The research that addresses the relationship between the personal creativity of
the lead entrepreneur and new venture financial performance uses a variety of out-
come measures such as increase in gross sales, return on investment and profit
growth. The articles that focus on the relationships are displayed below in Table 6.6.
An example of the type of research in this area is the Bellu (2003) study, which used
the Miner Sentence Completion Scale to investigate personal innovation of 38
growth-oriented entrepreneurs in a depressed region of Italy. The author found that
personal innovation was positively correlated with growth in new venture sales at
the 0.01 level of statistical significance.
The majority of extant evidence indicates the existence of a positive, statistically-
significant relationship. Three meta-analyses have been undertaken. The first, by
Rauch and Frese (2007), report a corrected r of 0.273 and indicate statistical signifi-
cance but do not report it. Rauch et al. (2009) report a corrected r of 0.242 and
indicate statistical significance but do not report it. Zhao et al. (2010) find an effect
size of 0.21 and report statistical significance at the 0.01 level. The effect size
(p. 393) is the, “…estimated population effect size, after correcting for measure-
ment error in both the predictor and the criterion.”
A number of the studies also report a positive and statistically-significant rela-
tionship between need for achievement and new venture financial performance.
The following studies are illustrative of the strength of the relationship between
various measures of the lead entrepreneurs’ personal creativity and different mea-
sures of the financial performance of their firms. The following studies illustrate the
potential of a lead entrepreneur’s personal creativity measures to potentially predict
the financial outcome performance of their ventures.
McGaffey and Christy (1975) measured an aspect of cognitive complexity that
“… emphasizes the way a person combines information for adaptive and creative
86
Table 6.5 Creativity and new venture employment growth
Related findings and level of
Article Creativity measures Outcome measures Level of significance significance
Miner et al. (1989) Personal innovation Mean annual growth Significant at 0.01 Self-achievement significant at 0.01
Miner Sentence Completion in employees Avoiding risks significant at 0.05
Scale
Miner et al. (1994) Personal innovation Growth in employees Significant at 0.05 Self-achievement significant at 0.01
Miner Sentence Completion
Scale
Walsh and Anderson (1995) Innovativeness Employment growth Not significant
Kirton Adaption-Innovation
Inventory
Utsch and Rauch (2000) Innovativeness Employment growth Significant at 0.05
Patchen’s (1965) interest in
innovation scale
Tullar (2001) Personal innovation Employment growth Significant at 0.01 for Self-achievement significant at 0.01
Miner Sentence Completion Russians and 0.05 for for both groups on both dependent
Scale Americans variables
Krauss et al. (2005) Innovative orientation Employment Growth Not significant Achievement orientation and
87
Table 6.6 (continued)
88
Related findings and
Article Creativity measures Outcome measures Level of significance level of significance
Schmitt-Rodermund (2004) Openness to experience Gross corporate income Significant at 0.10
45-item instrument (Ostendorf 1990)
Baron and Markman (2005) Openness to experience Personal Income from Negative and significant at
NEO-FFI Scale (Costa and McRae business 0.01
1992)
Krauss et al. (2005) Innovative orientation Business growth scale Not significant Achievement
(profit, customer and sales orientation significant
growth) at 0.01
Researchers created instrument Risk-taking
orientation not
significant
Rauch and Frese (2007) Innovativeness Business Success (multiple Significance indicated but Need for achievement
measures) not reported corrected r = 0.304
Meta-analysis Corrected r = 0.273
Hmieleski and Corbett (2008) Proclivity for improvisation Sales Growth No direct effect Self-efficacy
Researchers created instrument significantly
moderates the
relationship at 0.01
Lim et al. (2008) Creativity Business performance Negative and significant at
(fixed 0.01
Researchers created instrument costs divided by variable
89
90 6 Las pruebas
fundamentales
purposes…. Highly complex integrative functioning entails multiple and simultane-
ous alternative perspectives, abstract thinking, and minimally fixed or rigid rules for
dealing with novel information (p. 858). The authors found the measure of cognitive
complexity on sentence completion exercises was significantly related to the rate of
business growth (measured by increase in sales) of 50 businesses (from 1 to 100
employees, all profitable businesses) in a major Midwestern US city. The multiple
correlation score between the measures of cognitive complexity and the measure of
‘financial growth’ yielded an R score of 0.85 (R squared = 0.72) at a probability of
less than 0.05.
Miner et al. (1989) based their research on task motivation theory, which they
claim “is largely synonymous with McClelland’s achievement motivation theory. In
fact, the original objective was simply to recast the theory in role-motivation format.
In its final form, however, task theory appears to place somewhat greater emphasis
on the concept of role and specifies five separate motive patterns rather than the
single achievement motive.”(p. 554). The five different role and related motivational
base are as follows:
Exhibit 6.1 Roles and motivational bases of task theory as originally stated
Role Motivational base
1. Self-achievement (or individual A desire to achieve through one’s own efforts and to be
achievement) able to clearly attribute any success to personal causation
2. Risk taking A desire to take moderate risks that can be handled
through one’s own efforts
3. Feedback of results (or seeking A desire for some clear index of the level of performance
results of behavior)
4. Personal innovation A desire to introduce novel, innovative, or creative solutions
5. Planning for the future (or A desire to think about the future and anticipate future
planning and goal setting) possibilities
The sample was composed of 118 American entrepreneurs who had won National
Science Foundation (NSF) grants for their ventures. A comparison sample was
composed of 41 additional NSF grant winners who were manager/scientists and not
founders of their companies. Over 60 % of the sample had PhDs with the remainder
holding other advanced degrees. The Miner Sentence Completion Scale T was used
to measure the different aspects of the motivational make-up of the independent
variable. The dependent variables included mean annual growth in number of
employees and in sales. The correlation between the MSCS-T sub-scales and mean
annual growth in employees and sales respectively were as follows: self-achievement
(.49** & .35**), avoiding risks (.18* & .24*), feedback of results (.28** & .21*),
personal innovation (.32** & .13), and planning for the future (.24** & .39**). 1
Five and one half years later, Miner et al. (1994) conducted a follow-up on this
study. This time the study was on 59 responding entrepreneurs. The researchers
1
*p < 0.05 **p < 0.01
New Venture Outcomes91
classified the companies into high and low growth firms by whether or not they had
increased their sales by $1 million a year or not. Twenty-one firms were classified
as high growth. The MSCS-T was administered again (1994, p. 629).
The total score results were quite consistent across all analyses, with correlations rising into
the high .40s in the case of follow-up data. Among the subscales, self-achievement and
planning for the future were strong in both the concurrent and predictive analyses. Feedback
of results was significantly related to the criterion initially, but not at follow-up. Personal
innovation was a significant predictor at follow-up, but was not significant in the initial
concurrent study. Although avoiding risks produced a minimally significant correlation in
the concurrent analysis, this relationship no longer obtained at follow-up.
2
All four factors loaded at a 0.001 level on this scale.
92 6 Las pruebas
fundamentales
Bellu (2003) studied 38 growth-oriented entrepreneurs in a depressed region of
Italy. Eighty percent of the firms had been in business for over 5 years. Over 50 % of
the firms had more than 26 employees with some having over 150. ‘Personal innova-
tion’, ‘self-achievement’ and ‘risk avoidance’ were measured using the Miner Sentence
Completion Scale (e.g. Smith and Miner 1985). The criterion variable included both
sales and profit measures, as well as “the average percentage increase in sales for the
five-year period” which was “81 % and correspondingly that for profit was 83 %” (p.
169). Bellu (p. 169) states that the Miner sentence completion test overall showed
“substantial correlations between the total score for MSCS-T with sales and profit: 0.69
and 0.78 respectively, both at p = <0.01.”. The correlations and significance levels of the
three MSCS subscales and the growth in sales were respectively as follows: personal
innovation (0.58 with p < 0.01), self-achievement (0.58 with p < 0.01) and risk-avoid-
ance (0.70 with p < 0.01) for growth in sales. The correlations and significance levels of
the three MSCS subscales and the growth in profits were respectively as follows: per-
sonal innovation (0.47 with p < 0.01), self-achievement (0.65 with p < 0.01) and risk-
avoidance (0.67 with p < 0.01). Overall the total score of the MSCS-T scale correlated
0.89 with growth in sales (p < 0.01) and 0.78 with growth in profits (p < 0.01). In this
study of fast growing firms evidence is generated to demonstrate that entrepreneurial
creativity is useful for predicting differences between growth in sales and profitability
amongst the group. The comparisons are all amongst fast growing firms, making this a
strong test of the relationship between entrepreneurial creativity and growth.
The statistical measures provided in these five studies illustrate the potential of
creativity measures of lead entrepreneurs to be strongly related to the financial per-
formance of their firms. These studies are uncommon because much of the pub-
lished research at this time still limits itself to reporting p values. The emerging
evidence presented here suggests that the entrepreneurial creativity finding holds
across a spectrum of firm sizes and growth rates. It would appear that entrepreneur-
ial creativity is positively correlated with both initial and ongoing firm growth.
The articles that focus on the relationship between personal creativity and venture
innovativeness are displayed below in Tables 6.7 and 6.8. Table 6.7 presents find-
ings for creativity measured at the individual level. Table 6.8 presents findings for
creativity measured at the organization level. An example of the type of research in
this area is the Verhees and Meulenberg (2004) study, which used Leavitt and
Walton’s (1975) scale to measure innovativeness and Goldsmith and Hofacker’s
(1991) to measure product innovation.
It should be noted that many of the studies in this section focus on small to
medium size enterprises that contain as many as 250 employees. In addition, two of
the studies are somewhat unusual. The Kraft (1989) piece uses percentage of sales
related to products developed in last 5 years to distinguish owner-managers and
hired managers. The de Jong and Vermeulen (2006) piece investigated the influence
New Venture Outcomes
Table 6.7 Creativity and venture innovativeness
Related findings and level
Article Creativity measures Outcome measures Level of significance of significance
Kraft (1989) % of sales related to products Distinguishing owner-managers Significant at 0.10
developed in last 5 years from hired managers
Salavou and Lioukas Proactivness Perceptual measure of new product Significant at 0.01
(2003) Risk taking innovativeness Significant at 0.10
Naman and Slevin (1993) scale
Verhees and Innovativeness Product innovation [model mediated Innovativeness – domain-
Meulenberg (2004) by domain-specific innovativeness specific innovativeness:
(Goldsmith and Hofacker 1991)] significant at 0.01
Leavitt and Walton’s (1975) Beta = 0.48
scale Domain-specific
innovativeness – Product
innovation: significant at
0.01
Beta = 1.61
de Jong and Owner-Manager support for Recent product introductions: Significant at 0.05 for
Vermeulen (2006) innovation (self reported) 1. new to firm Wholesale and Transport,
2. new to industry Retail, Hotel and Catering
and Knowledge-intensive
Services; Significant at
0.01 for Construction
Significant at 0.10 for
Manufacturing, Hotel and
Catering, and Knowledge-
intensive Services;
Significant at 0.05 for
Construction
93
(continued)
Table 6.7 (continued)
94
Related findings and level
Article Creativity measures Outcome measures Level of significance of significance
Avlonitis and Entrepreneurial orientation New product uniqueness Significant at 0.00
Salavou (2007) Covin and Slevin (1986, 1988)
EO scale
Renko et al. (2009) Entrepreneurial orientation Product innovativeness Not significant
Knight’s (1997) scale
Rhee et al. (2009) Entrepreneurial orientation Innovativeness [mediated model EO positively influences
tested with three factors found to LO, significant at 0.01;
influence learning orientation (LO)] Beta = 0.16
Khandwalla’s (1977) scale LO positively influences
innovativeness, significant
at 0.01
Alam (2011) Innovativeness and openness to Firm innovation capability Innovativeness significant Need for achievement
experience at 0.05 significant at p = 0.012
Researcher created instrument Beta = 0.158 (Beta = 0.277); risk taking
Openness to experience behavior significant at
significant at 0.05 p = 0.006 (Beta = 0.211);
self-confidence significant
Beta = 0.130
at 0.002 (Beta = 0.348)
Baron and Tang Creativity Radicalness of innovations Significant at 0.05
(2011) Modes of problem solving
Shalley and Perry-Smith (2001)
Finally at the time of writing, research evidence on need for achievement was already
well understood to have a noteworthy impact on entrepreneurial performance, and it
was therefore decided only to overview this research. The remaining question was not
whether need for achievement was an impactful variable but whether a larger concept
of creativity could be demonstrated to have even more power as both a predictive and
an explanatory theory of entrepreneurial performance. A Collins et al. (2004) meta-
analysis revealed a mean correlation (r) between achievement motivation and perfor-
mance of 0.46 for known group studies and 0.18 for individual studies. The authors
(p. 111) suggest that, “…achievement motivation may be particularly potent at dif-
ferentiating between successful and unsuccessful groups of entrepreneurs.” More
recently, Stewart and Roth (2007) employed a meta-analysis that used more powerful
statistics in its analysis. Stewart and Roth reported that growth-oriented owners differ
markedly from income-oriented owners on need for achievement (average observed
effect size (Cohen’s) d = 0.67). The Cohen’s d is a standardized measure of effect size
that removes some of the problems with social science scales. A Cohen d effect size
around 0.5 is considered a medium size effect while an effect size of above 0.8 is
considered large. The Stewart and Roth meta-analysis of impact of need for achieve-
ment, all by itself, on average, produces approximately a ten percent change in
normalized entrepreneurial performance variance.
While need for achievement has been theoretically integrated into a macro-level
understanding of the role of entrepreneurship in economic development (McClelland
1961) it was less developed at the micro level. At the level of the individual
96 6 Las pruebas
fundamentales
entrepreneur, McClelland’s theory, as it stands, might be thought of as a small
theory with limited theoretical implications. Based on the weight of evidence to
date, need for achievement findings require a strong theoretical context to make
sense of its impact, or it is liable to be lumped in with other performance relevant
variables willy-nilly, as happened with Shane’s general theory where need for
achievement is undifferentiated in importance from the other 80 plus disparate vari-
ables in his general theory model. Fortunately, throughout the discipline of creativity,
need for achievement is recognized, in parts or as a whole, as creative motivation.
Discussion
Table 6.9 Summary of findings: personal creativity and aspects of new venturing
Relationship Finding
Intentionality Strong likelihood of a positive relationship
A meta-analysis finds an effect size ( p̆ ) for openness to
experience of 0.24
Entrepreneurs versus Strong likelihood of a difference between the two groups
non-entrepreneurs A meta-analysis finds a statistically significant difference for
openness to experience at the 0.01 level
New venture survival Insufficient evidence to indicate the existence of a relationship
Entrepreneurs versus small Strong likelihood of a difference between the two groups
business owners
Employment growth Some evidence in favor of a positive relationship
Financial performance Strong likelihood of a positive relationship
Three meta analyses report the following findings: corrected r
of 0.273; corrected r of 0.242; and, an effect size ( p̆ ) of 0.21
Innovation Some evidence in favor of a positive relationship
Resultados de la nueva 97
empresa
The existing personal creativity research appears (with limited exceptions) to
provide substantial support for the step model predicted by the general theory of
entrepreneurial creativity.
First, the dimension that is of greatest interest is that of financial performance.
Here, there are three meta-analyses that provide support for the contention that the
personal creativity of the lead entrepreneur is not only statistically significant in its
relationship with financial performance but practically significant as well.
Second, the dimension that has the least amount of support is new venture survival.
Third, the review here uncovered a number of non-significant findings and even
a few negative findings because the review was comprehensive of negative findings,
unlike Shane’s review.
Fourth, the research emphasis on each aspect of entrepreneurial activity varies.
The financial performance, intentionality, entrepreneurs versus non-entrepreneurs
research and innovation streams contain 21, 18, 17 and 15 studies, respectively. The
employment growth, entrepreneurs versus small business owners and survival
research streams contain seven, six and four studies, respectively.
Fifth, a sufficient amount of research has been undertaken in certain veins to
allow for systematic reviews. The meta-analyses that are reported here shed greater
light on the extent to which varied limited measures of personal creativity influence
entrepreneurial intentions; distinguishes entrepreneurs from non-entrepreneurs;
and, impacts new venture financial performance.
Sixth, the research indicates that entrepreneurship scholars use personal creativ-
ity measurement instruments that only focus on personality variables or thinking
styles. They have not yet adopted modern, more complex and multi-dimensional
views of creativity (c.f. Sternberg 1999) that include creative aspects of personality,
thinking styles, intellect, motivation, knowledge, and environmental influences.
Entrepreneurship scholars often include a motivation variable, usually characterized
as need to achieve, in their research but they do not view it as a component of cre-
ativity. Knowledge and intellect are not considered.
In addition, the field of entrepreneurship has only begun to explore the complex char-
acter of entrepreneurial creativity. It is reasonable to posit that entrepreneurial creativity
is a distinct variation of creative ability. Further still, in the future it will be desirable to
scientifically study threshold and interaction effects.
Seventh, the research still focuses on p values, leaving a lot to learn about effect
sizes.
Eighth, the research designs found here represent a fairly limited set relative to
those employed in the field of creativity (c.f. Mayer 1999). Creativity researchers
utilize psychometric, experimental, biographical, biological, computational and
contextual research designs. The addition of more research designs may produce an
even more comprehensive understanding of entrepreneurial creativity and its rele-
vance to new venturing.
Ninth, the entrepreneurial creativity research has not yet focused its attention on
the upper end of entrepreneurial performance (i.e. those who amass substantial
wealth). Creativity researchers, by comparison, have more thoroughly investigated
the creativity levels of highly successful individuals from a variety of other disci-
plines such as fine arts and music.
98 6 Las pruebas
fundamentales
Tenth, the research examined here does not shed light on the extent to which the
creative abilities of other entrepreneurial team members influences new venture
intentions and outcomes.
Eleventh and finally, need for achievement alone, may justify the centrality of
creativity within the entrepreneurship field. Important questions remain about how
much added predictive power other creativity variables provide. What will be the
relative predictive power of other creativity variables once they are more fully stud-
ied? What overall models of entrepreneurial creativity will yield the most predictive
power in the most economical way? As Popper states, a good scientific theory
should also possess substantial explanatory power. The next chapter demonstrates
the additional explanatory power of the entrepreneurial creativity theory over a min-
imalist theory of need-for-achievement.
Conclusion
A number of conclusions can be drawn from the survey of existing personal creativ-
ity research focused on entrepreneurial intention and activity. First, personal cre-
ativity distinguishes individuals with new venture intention from those without such
intentions. Second, individuals who start new ventures are more creative than their
non-start-up counterparts. Third, personal creativity is directly linked to business
performance with the exception of business survival. Then there is the intriguing
possibility that the apparent failure of more creative founders to better sustain their
ventures may not infrequently rather be the wisdom to let marginal ventures fail.
Fourth, single measures of creativity appear to have a substantial impact on entre-
preneurial performance. Fifth, since in the social sciences one needs to be con-
cerned whether findings are merely an artifact of methods or measures (Campbell
and Fiske 1959), it is important that entrepreneurial creativity findings tend to hold
across different conceptualizations, measures, samples and geographical contexts.
Sixth, the findings are not infrequently practically significant as well as statistically
significant. This is perhaps, all the more impressive given that measurement is par-
ticularly difficult in the field of creativity (c.f. Clapham 2004). Seventh, the existing
personal creativity research appears to provide substantial support for the step
model employed as a basis for prediction by the general theory of entrepreneurial
creativity. Finally, the need for achievement variable has been demonstrated to
possess a noteworthy effect size on its own as only one component of a confluence
theory of creativity.
Chapter 7
A General Theory and Its Explanatory Power
There are few established general scientific theories in the social sciences. One of
the most recent is Gottfredson and Hirshi’s (1990) General Theory of Crime (GTC).
An analysis of the similarities and differences of the GTC and the general theory of
entrepreneurial creativity (GTEC) may provide a useful means of evaluating the
GTEC, given that few established criteria exist for evaluating any general social
scientific theory, and that GTC is self-consciously a general scientific theory.
The first similarity is that GTC and the GTEC attempt to empirically explain
central outcomes in their respective fields, crime and business success/innovation,
respectively, by reference to selected attributes of individuals, low self-control and
creativity, respectively. Second, the GTC and the GTEC intend to explain all
instances of central outcomes, independent of history and geography – from the
Age of Rome to the New Millennium, and from Afghanistan to America. Third, the
GTC and GTEC do not attempt to differentiate focal individuals. The GTC does not
distinguish amongst burglars, smugglers or white collar criminals. The GTEC does
not distinguish amongst individuals launching convenience stores, professional
firms or biotechnology companies except to the degree that new venture financial
performance and/or innovation are involved.
Fourth, the theories focus on key outcome variables. It is a matter of no small
importance that development of the GTC began with an understanding of a key
dependent variable, the nature of crime. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990, p. 82) argue
that the positivistic science practiced in fields such as sociology, psychology and
economics lays claim to independent variables, which in turn become respective
starting points:
Positivistic social science resists general schemes or theories. As a consequence, it
proliferates concepts without concern for their distinctiveness or significance. This pro-
duces endless distinctions among behavioral categories and generates apparent interest in
the countless permutations and combinations of units and their properties (e.g., internal
labor markets of multinational firms devoted to extractive economies; male gang drug-
related drive-by shootings; ideology and voting patterns among Southern workers in the
1930’s).
The GTEC developed from an initial consideration of both the nature of the
entrepreneurial outcomes (i.e. new combinations) and the entrepreneurial process
(i.e. complex, ill-defined and open-ended). Although established business disci-
plines have carved up the entrepreneurship field for research purposes, they have
largely focused their attentions on independent variables and intermediate business
processes.
Fifth, the independent variables in each theory are not intended to be solely
determinative of the dependent variables. Although the independent variable of the
GTC, an individual’s lack of self-control, may manifest itself via criminal behavior,
it may equally well manifest itself in a variety of non-criminal activities such as
accidents, smoking and alcohol abuse. Thus, the author’s (1990, p. 91) note: “Our
image therefore implies that no specific act, type of crime, or form of deviance is
uniquely required by the absence of self-control.” Similarly, the high entrepreneur-
ial creativity test scores of artists and scientists may be associated with a strong
ability to convince others of the value of their ideas. There is no particular reason to
expect measures of entrepreneurial creativity to only predict growth and innovation
of independent, new ventures.
Sixth, the theories may share a similar limitation related to level of generaliz-
ability. Both the GTC and the GTEC may have societal level implications, but are
focused on micro-level issues. Accordingly, the theories say less about the societal
levels of crime and societal levels of entrepreneurship.
Seventh, both theories tend to raise questions about the emergence of the pre-
cipitating tendencies in people. What kinds of circumstances and environmental
factors predispose people towards low self-control or towards high entrepreneurial
creativity?
The first difference between the GTC and the GTEC lies in how explanatory
power is demonstrated for each theory. Here, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) faced
the problem of demonstrating the relative merits of their theory vis-à-vis a sizeable
number of existing theories within the field. Their strategy was to develop a compet-
ing theory that more effectively accounted for some of the most robust findings in the
field of criminology: (1) that overwhelmingly, criminals don’t specialize by type of
crimes, moving fluidly from one type to another; (2) that choice of crime is typically
made not by potential payoff but by proximity, ease and convenience; (3) that crimi-
nal behavior peaks around age 18–20 and declines rapidly after that; (4) that criminal
behavior can be predicted from an early age, and is in that sense, relatively stable
over time; (5) that gender accounts for marked differences in criminal participation;
and, (6) that some races and ethnicities are much more likely to participate in crimi-
nality than others. The entrepreneurship field, by contrast, lacks a similar small set of
extremely robust findings by which to challenge the veracity of a general theory.
Second, there is a substantial contrast in the degree and nature of historical con-
tinuity between the theories. As illustrated in Exhibit 7.1 below, the GTEC is built
7 A General Theory and Its Explanatory Power101
Exhibit 7.1
two core propositions at the time of its inception. The GTEC predicts that personal
entrepreneurial creativity will strongly and positively correlate with a number new
venture behaviors and outcomes. The evidence reviewed in the previous chapter pro-
vides substantial evidence for both the efficacy and the verisimilitude of the theory.
Personality
Sternberg and Lubart (1999) list a number of personality attributes that are sup-
ported by numerous empirical findings: self-efficacy; take sensible risks; tolerate
ambiguity; non-conformity; and, willingness to overcome obstacles (perseverance).
Self-efficacy is defined by Bandura (1977) as a person’s belief in her/his ability to
succeed in a specific situation. The taking of sensible risks involves the uncertain
development of ideas that are potentially to be admired and regarded as trend-
setting. The tolerance of ambiguity involves an individual’s ability to neutrally and
openly perceive vague information. Non-conformity is an indication of an individ-
ual’s willingness to think and act independently with respect to the norms of a
group. Willingness to overcome obstacles is the inclination of an individual to con-
tinue on a path despite the difficulties.
El poder explicativo de la teoría general de la creatividad empresarial 103
Motivation
The research on entrepreneurial motivations, i.e. the stimuli for creating new
ventures, can be separated into a number of categories at the individual level
(Hessels et al. 2008). The first category can be characterized as push versus pull
reasons. According to Hessels et al. (p. 325):
These types of studies, being mostly conducted in developed countries where push motives
are less prevalent, report mostly pull motives such as autonomy (independence, freedom),
income and wealth, challenge, and recognition and status (Kolvereid 1996; Feldman and
Bolino 2000; Carter et al. 2003; Wilson et al. 2004). Autonomy or independence is one of
the most cited pull factors for starting a business (Shane et al. 1991; Kolvereid 1996; Carter
et al. 2003; Van Gelderen and Jansen 2006). However, individuals may also be pushed into
entrepreneurship (Thurik et al. 2008). Necessity motives for example occur when (a threat
of) unemployment forces people into self-employment.
Thinking Styles
Brigham and Sorenson (2008) used the CSI to discover that high-technology
founding owner-managers are significantly more intuitive than the general popula-
tion and managers. They also found habitual (both serial and portfolio) entrepreneurs
to be significantly more intuitive than their novice counterparts. Armstrong and Hird
(2009) used the CSI to compare entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs, and found the
former group to be more intuitive and less analytical than non-entrepreneurs.
Cools and Van den Broeck (2008) used their Cognitive Styles Indicator to inves-
tigate the extent to which the creating, knowing and planning cognitive styles
distinguish entrepreneurs from non-entrepreneurs and found no difference with
respect to the creating style. They found that entrepreneurs scored lower than non-
entrepreneurs on the knowing and planning styles.
A small number of studies have investigated the influence of thinking style on
aspects of new venture development. Ginn and Sexton (1990) used the Myers-
Briggs Type Indicator to compare thinking styles of fast-growth and slower-grower
entrepreneurs and found the former group to be significantly more intuitive. Sadler-
Smith (2004) used Sternberg’s (1997) Mental Self-Government Local and Global
Thinking Styles scales and Scott and Bruce’s (1995) General Decision-Making
Style questionnaire and found that global or local thinking styles had no impact on
firm performance and that intuitive decision style had a positive relationship with
sales growth. Ko (2008) used Sternberg and Wagner’s (1992) Thinking Styles
Inventory to find that only a liberal thinking style, which indicates a preference for
novel approaches to tasks, influenced the extent of firm-level innovation of technol-
ogy entrepreneurs.
Intelligence
The researchers (p. 56) found that, “Intellectual capacity itself (as measured by IQ
score) has a positive influence on entrepreneurial talent.”
In his book, Shane (2003) includes a small number of studies that use uncorrobo-
rated measures of IQ to develop greater insight into the relevance of personal intel-
ligence. Based on the studies’ findings, he (p. 55) suggests that, “…entrepreneurs
have better cognitive capacity than non-entrepreneurs and therefore can identify
opportunities by thinking about them,” and that, “…intelligence is correlated with
the discovery of more valuable opportunities.”
Knowledge
There are two key debates in the field of creativity regarding the relevance of knowl-
edge to creative outcomes. The first debate involves the extent to which creativity is
domain-specific or domain-general (Baer, 2012). If creativity is domain-general, it
means that individuals can produce highly-creative outputs in a number of different
disciplines. According to Baer (2012, p. 337): “…being highly creative in just two
domains is indeed extraordinary, and it is almost impossible to find an example of
anyone being creative at the very highest level in three or more domains.” The
empirical evidence suggests that something may prevent highly creative people
from producing creative outputs in multiple domains. The mitigating factor may
simply be time (i.e. number of hours available to dedicate to assimilating requisite
knowledge).
The second debate directly addresses the extent to which knowledge plays a
fundamental role in creative output. The tension view proposes a non-linear rela-
tionship between knowledge and creativity. Weisberg (1999, p. 227) describes the
tension view:
Thus, while it is universally acknowledged that one must have knowledge of a field if one
hopes to produce something novel within it, it is also widely assumed that too much
experience can leave one in ruts, so that one cannot go beyond stereotypes responding. The
relationship between knowledge and creativity is assumed, therefore, to be shaped like an
inverted U, with maximal creativity occurring with some middle range of knowledge.
The foundation view, which stands in stark contrast to the tension view, proposes
that knowledge is positively correlated with creative outputs. Proponents of this
view (c.f. Hayes’ 10-year rule, 1989) suggest that deep immersion in fields such as
painting, poetry, music, physics and psychology is critical to producing creative
contributions. Weisberg (1999, p. 232) reviewed the research related to both views
and deemed that, “At this point, the only conclusion to be drawn is that a long period
of time in a domain seems to be a necessary, although not sufficient, condition for
notable contribution.”
The relationship between knowledge acquisition and entrepreneurial perfor-
mance has been tackled from a number of angles. The first angle is returns to formal
education. The most recent findings raise serious concerns about the extent to which
useful knowledge for successful new venturing is disseminated via formal education.
108 7 Una teoría general y su poder explicativo
Iversen et al. (2010, p. 179) use Danish labor market data to demonstrate substantial
variance in returns to schooling for the self-employed:
We show that the estimated average return to schooling of 6.5 % per year hides substantial
differences across different educational levels. Specifically, we find a highly non-linear
relationship with very low returns to most educational levels in self-employment. The
exceptions are a few specialized graduate levels of education (doctors and lawyers).
1
It is not uncommon for autodidacts to seek advice and instruction from others (e.g. SBDC
counselors).
El poder explicativo de la teoría general de la creatividad empresarial 109
analyzed formal education and experience findings show only modest promise.
Second, there are numerous examples of self-taught highly creative individuals
from numerous disciplines. The list includes, among others, Leonardo da Vinci,
James Watt, and Frank Lloyd Wright. The Beatles used their many early live perfor-
mances to develop and refine their talent. It would appear that entrepreneurs such as
Bill Gates and Michael Dell fit on the list. They practiced and refined their entrepre-
neurship skills while being entrepreneurs in a way not dissimilar to that of the
Beatles who refined their artistry by performing more than once per day on average
beginning in 1960 (Weisberg 1999).
Environment
Culture
Individual
Field Produces Novelty
Society Personal
Background
Stimulates Novelty
Conclusion
The main focus of this chapter has been on the explanatory power of the theory of
entrepreneurial creativity. A major reason for demonstrating explanatory power is
to provide evidence of the broad theoretical usefulness of entrepreneurial creativity
to make integrative sense of otherwise discrete findings in the field of entrepreneur-
ship. This review of GTEC implications provide a preliminary demonstration of the
power of the GTEC to make sense of different empirical findings from the science
of entrepreneurship. In addition it was shown that theories and evidence from the sci-
ence of creativity can also be channeled through the six creative resources of the
GTEC to provide different perspectives on entrepreneurship propositions. Some of
the propositions demonstrate the compatibility of the two fields for providing
mutual understanding. For example, personality evidence shows a strong overlap
between creative people, in general and entrepreneurs, in particular. Some creative
Conclusion111
resources, have been better developed within the field of creativity than within
entrepreneurship. For example, there is a relative dearth of research on the relevance
of intellect to entrepreneurial behaviors and outcomes, in the entrepreneurship field.
In the process, more evidence was added on the potential predictive power of GTEC.
In addition to demonstrating the explanatory power of a scientific theory, evi-
dence on the veracity of unstated auxiliary propositions (that flow from viewing
entrepreneurship as fundamentally creative) is indirect support for the verisimili-
tude of GTEC. This chapter and the ones which follow provide a substantial number
of different studies that collectively provide a great deal of indirect support for this
theory. In order, to properly evaluate the theory, consideration must jointly be made
of the evidence behind both hard core and auxiliary propositions.
Ultimately, this chapter is yet one more step in demonstrating that a theory of
entrepreneurial creativity can claim to be a useful, general, scientific theory of
entrepreneurship. The case for acceptance of entrepreneurial creativity as a general
theory is supported by the following observations:
1. The general theory of entrepreneurial creativity is more than a conceptual frame-
work or philosophy. It contains core propositions that are testable. Ultimately,
the GTEC may be rejected or modified, based on evidence collected over time.
2. There is substantial evidence to support the central propositions of the theory.
3. The theory fits within a strong historical tradition relating creativity to entrepre-
neurship in general and to that of Schumpeter in particular. It extends what is
already known in a cumulative manner.
4. The theory integrates ‘need to achieve’ findings into a more meaningful theoreti-
cal framework.
5. The theory has a large explanatory reach at a time when predictive theories in the
entrepreneurship field typically relate to few propositions.
6. There is substantial empirical support for auxiliary propositions related to the
GTEC.
7. The theory brings the benefits of a tested theory 2 from another discipline, cre-
ativity, to bear on the development of the Entrepreneurship field. In particular,
the findings within the field of Creativity provide potential generative power to
the field of Entrepreneurship.
The implications of such a theory are large and may go to the very definition of
the entrepreneurship field. The GTEC envisages entrepreneurship as an indepen-
dent, creative, applied art and/or applied social science rather than as a sub-discipline
of the traditionally viewed, technically characterized field of business management.
The entrepreneur is the creative artist; the manager, a technocrat. One implication of
having a general theory of entrepreneurship, based as it is upon entrepreneurial
creativity, is probably to view the field as not so much a sub-field of management
but more as a distinct creative discipline, bringing to bear the science of creativity
upon the science of entrepreneurship.
2
The parts of the theory are much better tested than the whole.
Part IV
Auxiliary Theories
Chapter 8
Entrepreneurial Creativity
Abstract In the last two chapters you were given evidence that should give you
reason to believe that the theory of entrepreneurial creativity merits your serious
consideration. What, however, does it really mean to be entrepreneurially creative?
This next chapter elaborates the creative resources likely to be found in a prototypic,
entrepreneurially creative person; providing yet more evidence on the validity of
the theory.
To justify the need for a creative person, a job requires a relatively high number of
ambiguous, open-ended problems. Ford (1996) developed a theory of creative
action, which described circumstances in which creative activity is preferred over
conventional activity and vice versa. With respect to innovation, Ford (p. 1125) con-
cluded that creativity has a critical role to play, “…across levels and in all phases of
El espíritu empresarial como arte/ciencia creativa 117
aplicada
the innovation process.” He (p. 1125) also concluded that the role of creativity is
limited: “Unlike prior conceptualization of organizational creativity, this theory
implies that creative actions must hold a relative advantage to habitual actions in
terms of expected personal consequences before creative pursuits will be intention-
ally undertaken.” When problems are sufficiently well understood to allow conven-
tional solutions, such solutions should normally prevail.
There is some limited evidence that creative people aren’t suited to particular
careers or work environments. Hayward and Everett (1983) found that government
employees who scored higher than fellow employees on the Kirton Innovation-
Adaption Inventory (KAI) were more likely to resign. Chan (1996) found that
Singaporean Civil Service engineers, who were materially more innovative than
their counterparts, as measured by the KAI, were more likely to leave positions in
which job expectations involved production and maintenance within a given techno-
logical system. Mitchell and Cahill (2005) found that new cadets (Plebes) at the US
Naval academy were materially less creative on the KAI. Moreover those students
who left the program were significantly more innovative than those who stayed.
Chilton et al. (2005) used the KAI to find that high innovator-type software develop-
ers experienced decreased performance and elevated stress levels in environments
suited to high adaptor types. Brigham et al. (2007, p. 42) found that, “…for less
structured work environments, intuitive owner-managers experience higher satisfac-
tion than those who are analytic, but for more structured work environments, intui-
tive owner-managers experience lower satisfaction than those who are analytic.”
To date much of the work on creativity has either focused on the arts or the sciences
(Feist 1999), although some writers may include technological achievement as a
third general classification of career types (Ward et al. 1999, p. 190).
All creativity to some extent or another depends upon discovery, self-expression
and design. Some disciplines weigh more heavily on one of these factors than on the
other two. Great artistic work and great scientific discoveries have been inspira-
tional sources for studies of creative people and their times (i.e. Gruber and Wallace
1999; Simonton 1999). The fact that the creativity of the arts and sciences are
understood to contain systematic differences may attest to different guiding forces
driving practice in these two types of discipline. Creative outcomes in the fine arts
are probably driven more by self-exploration and self-expression than those in the
sciences, which are probably driven more by outward exploration and the drive to
discover the external world. Feist (1999, p. 283) appears to agree, arguing that,
“One of the main differences between artistic and scientific creativity may be the
importance of getting more deeply into affective states and thematic material in
artistic creativity.”
We argue that neither a focus on inner or outer exploration does justice to entre-
preneurship. It may be more useful to view entrepreneurship as an applied art or
118 8 Creatividad empresarial
1
There is no page reference for this. Others use the same quote and also do not include a page
reference.
120 8 Creatividad empresarial
tie together, a number of other related abilities such as sales skills, negotiation skills,
communications ability and emotional intelligence. In order to grow their ventures
over time, entrepreneurs need to maintain the confidence of a variety of different
groups of people. Maintaining confidence is probably a political/diplomatic skill.
More successful entrepreneurs may need social and emotional intelligence to under-
stand other people, whether they be customers, employees or resource suppliers.
Improvisational ability. The idea that entrepreneurs need to improvise is not a new
idea. Baker et al. (2003) provided a number of different examples of new technol-
ogy entrepreneurs improvising from the point of opportunity identification onwards.
Hmieleski and Corbett (2006) provided evidence that the tendency towards creative
improvisation was related to people’s tendencies to have the intention to start a
growth venture, to take a course in entrepreneurship, to work for a start-up and to
start a new venture. Sarasvathy’s (1998) documented the development strategies of
a number of extraordinarily successful entrepreneurs. Her research uncovered the
commonplace tendency of entrepreneurs to improvise in solving their problems.
Sarasvathy (2001) has since developed a theory of entrepreneurial action centered
on her concept of improvisation which she labelled effectuation. She likens the
entrepreneur to a cook who crafts possibilities from ingredients that are immedi-
ately available, rather than collecting necessary ingredients ahead of time in order
to follow a preset recipe.
Of course, improvisation is neither simple nor automatic. Even though improvi-
sation is the act of spontaneous composition, a lot of knowledge and practice is
required in order to learn how to be productively spontaneous. The premise of The
Book of Five Rings (Mushashi 1643), an ancient Japanese text on the relationship
between improvisation and deadly sword fighting, is that endless practice is needed
before a fight. When a fight begins, however, a swordfighter should lose himself in
the moment. In Jazz, a twentieth century art form founded on improvisation, artists
are educated for many years in order to learn how to meaningfully improvise. There
are many guidelines regarding effective and ineffective note sequences.
Collaborative ability. Shane (2003, p. 99) indirectly suggests that entrepreneurs
tend to be disagreeable, difficult people: “The evidence supports the proposition
that people who are friendly, socially conforming, compliant, flexible, trusting,
cooperative, forgiving, tolerant, softhearted and courteous are likely to be less entre-
preneurial.” He (2003, pp. 106–107) also indicates that a, “…desire for indepen-
dence tends to be associated with the likelihood of self-employment.” Interestingly,
“…people who have a greater desire for independence actually perform worse at
entrepreneurial activities” (Shane 2003, p. 108).
It would appear then, that successful entrepreneurs are rather prickly people who
happen to know how to act interdependently. It appears that a strong spirit of inde-
pendence is needed to launch a promising venture, but it may be potentially toxic
once the venture is launched. These countervailing tendencies of the independent
entrepreneurial personality might be labeled the independence paradox.
¿Qué es común al intelecto creativo? 121
2
Shane treats tolerance of ambiguity as a part of risk taking propensity.
122 8 Creatividad empresarial
being virtual recluses…” Shane et al. (2010, p. 1155) argue that, “Entrepreneurship
is more appropriate for extraverts than introverts, because entrepreneurs need to
interact with investors, employees, and customers and sell them on the value of the
business.” Costa and McCrae (1992) describe extraverted individuals as assertive,
dominant, active, energetic, talkative, cheerful and enthusiastic people who seek
excitement and stimulation. Costa et al. (1984) found that more extraverted indi-
viduals tend to have more interest in enterprising occupations than those who are
less extraverted.
To date, two meta-analyses have been conducted on extraversion. The first study,
by Zhao and Seibert (2006), hypothesized that entrepreneurs would have higher
extraversion scores than managers. The researchers did not find a statistically sig-
nificant difference between the groups. However, they (p. 266) indicated that the
confidence interval, “…was wide and included zero, suggesting the difference
between entrepreneurs and managers on this personality dimension is not reliable or
could not be measured with precision in this sample.” The second study, by Zhao
et al. (2010), focused on the impact of extraversion on new venture intentions and
performance. The researchers reported effect sizes of 0.16 and 0.09, respectively.
Perhaps extraversion might be expected to have a curvilinear relationship with
venture performance. While entrepreneurs may need to aggressively interact with
others they also need to want to have alone time to ponder their evolving ideas.
After a certain threshold amount of extraversion, the relationship might turn
negative – thus suggesting an upside-down U relationship between extraversion and
venture performance. Such a relationship might explain the relatively unimpressive
findings to date.
competition with others or with oneself. Second, it appears that it is the goal and not
the financial gain that is important; the joy of being involved in creation pulls entre-
preneurs as much as it pulls at other creative people. Third, creative people every-
where are driven by the need to create a body of work that will outlive them. These
first three goals were all described by Schumpeter as part of entrepreneurial motiva-
tion (Schumpeter 1911). McClelland (1961) not only sharpened the imagery around
the first three goals, he added a fourth dimension, that of credible goals, and shaped
all of components together into a single overarching entrepreneurial motive called
achievement motivation.
A Desire for success. The game that entrepreneurs choose to play is blatantly a
competitive one. Even if they begin the game with a competitive niche or a localized
monopoly of sorts, over time most goods become commodities and entrepreneurs
must compete. Competition is not foreign to creative artists or creative scientists
either (Abra 1993). It is important to realize that creative people, including entrepre-
neurs, may just as soon compete with themselves as with other people (Abra 1993).
Schumpeter (1911, p. 686) writes: “…there is the will to conquer: the impulse to
fight, to prove oneself superior to others, to succeed for the sake, not of the fruits of
success, but of success itself.”
Intrinsic motivation. Schumpeter (1911, p. 686) appears to have recognized both
the joy derived from the creative process as well as the motivating force inherent in
the act: “…the joy of creating, of getting things done, or simply of exercising one’s
energy and ingenuity.” Csikszentmihalyi (1997, p. 29) has also documented the joy
of creating and related it to the experience of flow:
The metaphor of ‘flow’ is one that many people have used to describe the sense of effortless
action they feel in the moments that stand out as the best in their lives. Athletes refer to it as
‘being in the zone’, religious mystics as being in ‘ecstasy’, artists and musicians as aesthetic
rapture.
The notion that entrepreneurs are more driven by an intrinsic need for achieve-
ment rather than by a need for money or greed is emphasized in the work of
McClelland (The Achieving Society 1961), who popularized the idea of achievement
motivation. McClelland knowingly based his understanding of the achievement
motive on work by Atkinson. Referencing a series of three studies by Atkinson,
McClelland (p. 235) stated:
All three studies point to the same conclusion: people with high n Achievement are not
influenced much by money rewards; they are interested in achievement. People with low n
Achievement, on the other hand, are influenced by money and can be made to work harder
for money or other external incentives.
Stewart and Roth (2007) reported that growth-oriented owners differ markedly
from income-oriented owners on need for achievement (average observed effect
size (Cohen’s) d = 0.67).
A legacy. The sum and substance of a creative life is an individual’s body of
work. The body of work lives beyond. Death and the durability of one’s work may
be inextricably tied together in the minds of many creators (Abra 1995).
126 8 Creatividad empresarial
Creative artists and scientists strive for success and are sustained by intrinsic moti-
vation, desire to leave a legacy and pursue credible goals. Entrepreneurs are not
unlike artists and scientists in these regards. However, entrepreneurs may be some-
what distinguished by a stronger emphasis on money, since it is both a requirement
for participation and a measure of success.
population with respect to both means and variances on the I-A scale. Stewart et al.
(1999) used the Innovation Scale of the Jackson Personality Inventory (Jackson
1976) to find that entrepreneurs exhibit a stronger predisposition to be innovative
than small business owners.
Focus on problem. Since an evocative experiment by Csizkzentmihalyi and Getzels
(1970) that demonstrated a longitudinal impact of a problem focus orientation on
creative success, problem-finding has been a standard concept within the field of
creativity. Csizkzentmihalyi and Getzels (1970) filmed a number of art students
who attempted to paint a still life in a 1 hour session. Analysis of the film record
revealed that those student artists who spent a relatively larger portion of the hour
examining the fruit in the bowl and otherwise delaying their start (presumably
thinking) not only produced a more creative piece of art in the experimental setting
but also were subsequently more likely to develop successful careers as professional
artists.
More recently, a number of studies have found evidence that problem construction
ability is correlated with originality and quality of solutions to a number of real
world problems (c.f. Reiter-Palmon et al. 1997, 1998; Mumford et al. 1997). One
study, Mumford et al. (1994), asked two groups of undergraduate management
students to develop a marketing survey and advertisement for a fictitious product.
Only one group was given a problem construction condition which involved listing
important factors for consideration and a restatement of the problem before task
engagement. The researchers (1994) found that the problem construction condition
group generated higher quality and more original ideas than the other group.
Contrary thinking. Non-conformity indicates a disposition to think and act inde-
pendently with respect to group norms. As mentioned in the previous chapter, a
number of studies have examined the extent to which entrepreneurs are contrary
thinkers. Studies by Sexton and Bowman (1984, 1986) revealed that entrepreneurs
and managers differ significantly on the need for conformity. Buttner and Rosen
(1988) found that bank loan officers rated successful entrepreneurs as much higher
on non-conformity than average men and women. Rosenfeld et al. (1993) found that
non-conformity distinguishes entrepreneurs from managers. A study by Engle et al.
(1997) indicated that non-conformity distinguishes entrepreneurs from employees.
Intuition. Shane (2003, p. 115) describes intuition as, “…a belief or feeling that
something is true without actually gathering evidence to demonstrate its veracity.”
As mentioned in the previous chapter, a number of studies have investigated the
relevance of intuition to new venture activity. Generally speaking, the existing
evidence suggests that high-growth entrepreneurs are more intuitive than low-
growth entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs (Ginn and Sexton 1990; Allinson et al.
2000; Brigham and Sorenson 2008; Armstrong and Hird 2009).
Deferred judgment and ideation. One of the fundamental requirements of brain-
storming is that of deferring judgment. The suppression of judgment delays a criti-
cal mindset that would otherwise prevent the emergence of new and potentially
valuable ideas. To date, only one study, by Ames and Runco (2005) connects
128 8 Creatividad empresarial
The aspects of an entrepreneurial thinking style discussed above overlap with those
of creative artists and scientists. As such, it is entirely possible that entrepreneurs do
not differ with respect to thinking style from their creative colleagues in other
disciplines.
Entrepreneurial Knowledge
The deep and lengthy immersion required for certain fields suggests that a great
deal of knowledge is required for creative contributions (Hayes 1989). In the field
of entrepreneurship, there is also a sense that knowledge is important. Ward (2004,
p. 176) argues that, “Creative ideas do not appear, ex nihilo, full-blown in the
minds of their originators, but rather must be crafted from the person’s existing
knowledge.”
What is Common to Creative Thinking Styles? 129
There is vagueness with respect to some of the modern definitions of the nature
of entrepreneurial knowledge. According to Kirzner (1979, p. 8), whose definition
of entrepreneurship is based on arbitrage: “Entrepreneurial knowledge is a rarefied,
abstract type of knowledge – the knowledge of where to obtain information and
how to deploy it.” Birch (1987, p. 140) viewed growth entrepreneurship as being
based on innovation and argued that entrepreneurial knowledge comes from the
creation of new knowledge across a variety of disciplines: “Universities – particularly
those that concentrate upon research – are the wellspring of the high-innovation
economy.”
Other than for the ability to find knowledge and deploy it from the most innova-
tive of sources, are there other, more specific types of knowledge that are of general
usage to most growth entrepreneurs? As discussed in previous chapters, the most
recent education-related findings raise serious concerns about the extent to which
useful knowledge for successful new venturing is disseminated via formal educa-
tion. Finding specific knowledge that makes a difference to entrepreneurial success
is proving to be difficult. What constitutes the empirically-demonstrated, effective
knowledge base of the entrepreneurially creative person is not well understood at
the current time.
One place to look for key forms of entrepreneurial knowledge is the core tech-
nologies or art forms of most new growth ventures. Some types of entrepreneurial
knowledge that are probably useful, and maybe even important, for success in
entrepreneurship might include the following: selling know-how, negotiations
know-how, knowledge of the competition, knowledge about an industry and core
technology know-how.
Selling know-how. Steve Case (Gendron 2004, p. 307), the founder of AOL,
describes his notion of selling as, “…to try to look at things from somebody else's
perspective and then just try to position something that kind of makes sense.” Shane
(2003, p. 98) suggests that, “…to make sales, entrepreneurs must satisfy customers’
needs. The process requires them to be able to get beyond the customer’s initial
objections and overcome unarticulated fears to recognize unstated wants
requirements.”
David Birch (Aronsson 2004) argues that selling is a critical skill that an entre-
preneur must know and master. This seems plausible, particularly in light of Bhide’s
(2000) finding that founders of INC 500 companies typically operate as the sole or
key salesperson – suggesting both that it is difficult to attract key salespeople to new
firms and that the sales role is integral to entrepreneurial success.
Negotiations know-how. Carnevale and Pruitt (1992, p. 532) state that negotiation
is a procedure for, “…resolving opposing preferences between parties.” Lewicki
(1992) suggests that the following four factors are present in negotiation: at least
two parties; the perception of conflict/disagreement, interpersonal exchange/
communication; and, a mutual desire to reach an agreement. The two main styles of
negotiation are integrative (‘win-win’) and distributive (‘win-lose’).
130 8 Creatividad empresarial
Knowledge of the competition. This is an area of research that has also received
relatively little scientific attention. Peters and Brush (1996) found that new venture
outcomes benefited from knowledge of competitors’ marketing information. Zahra
et al. (2002, p. 21) found that development of formalized competitive analysis sys-
tems positively influence new venture success as strategic uncertainty in the envi-
ronment increases: “The value of a comprehensive CA system increases in highly
uncertain environments as new ventures struggle to carve out their competitive
niche in complex and dynamic markets.” Presumably, entrepreneurs benefit through
an appreciation of the relative merits of their products and services in fast changing
industries.
Knowledge about an industry. Shane (2000) asserts that, “Three major dimensions
of prior knowledge are important to the process of entrepreneurial discovery: prior
knowledge of markets, prior knowledge of ways to serve markets, and prior
knowledge of customer problems…Important prior knowledge about markets might
include information about supplier relationships, sales techniques, or capital equip-
ment requirements that differ across markets (Von Hippel 1988).”
A number of studies have examined the link between industry knowledge and
entrepreneurial performance. In one of the earliest studies, Vesper (1979, p. 165)
noted that a large majority of the successful case studies he reviewed had a,
“…pattern of close connection between prior work and new-venture ideas.” Feeser
and Willard (1990) found that growth rates of new ventures were positively influ-
enced by founders’ prior experiences with related products, technologies and
markets. Bosma et al. (2004) discovered that experience in the same industry sector
influenced the survival, profitability and number of employees of new ventures.
Colombo and Grilli (2005, p. 795) investigated the relevance of industry knowledge
in high-tech industries and found the following: “…prior work experience in the
same industry of the new firm is positively associated with growth while prior work
experience in other industries is not.” Ganotakis (2012, p. 510) also finds that the
relationship holds in high-tech industries: “Entrepreneurs with experience in differ-
ent industrial sectors seem to be less likely to affect the performance of a firm than
those with same-sector experience. The latter are more likely to have a better
knowledge of technological and marketing opportunities that can be exploited in
this specific market.”
Core technology know-how. Core technological knowledge is distinct from the
knowledge gained from working in an industry. It refers to technical skills, such as
Developing Measurement Instruments131
software development, that are honed by related education and training. There is
evidence supporting the proposition that entrepreneurs benefit from experiences
related to the technologies of a specific industries. Almus and Nerlinger (1999)
found that West German start-up firms who had founders with technical degrees
enjoyed greater growth in high, medium and low technology businesses. Colombo
and Grilli (2005, p. 795) found that, “…it is the technical work experience of found-
ers as opposed to their commercial work experience that determines growth” in
high-tech industries.
Selling and negotiations know-how may be common to all creative endeavors and
not specific to only new venturing. Scientists need to sell their ideas and artists need
to sell their creations, and both groups negotiate for the required resources. The
difference is one of degree, with entrepreneurs typically selling and negotiating
much more frequently than the other two groups. It may also be that artists and
scientists benefit from some industry and competition knowledge to function at
peak levels, but the differences here are also likely to be of degree. Finally, the art-
ists and scientists need to know about relevant core technologies. Overall, what
initially might look to be a difference of kind may be more a difference of degree.
There are, of course, material knowledge requirements differences among artists,
scientists and entrepreneurs, but those requirements are likely to be project specific
for each creator.
While it is critical to predict who the better performers will be, it is also necessary
to carefully explain how some individuals will be better performers than others. The
best tools for prediction will likely be composite tools that take features from vari-
ous aspects of the different creative resources. In order to determine which of the
various creative resources has the most predictive power, researchers will need to
‘drill down’ into each resource to uncover the aspects that produce the strongest
connections with venture performance.
Let us say for argument sake that beyond a 115 IQ, personality variables will
have the most power for explaining entrepreneurial performance. Then let us say
that of the various personality variables involved that self-efficacy explains most of
the subsequent performance variance. Next, researchers will try to explain why self-
efficacy is so important. Ultimately, the search for answers will hopefully not only
aid understanding but yield still better tools for prediction and control. Here, control
implies an enhanced ability to identify those who will be successful entrepreneurs.
Confluence
Robinson et al. (1991) used the entrepreneurial attitude orientation (EAO) scale to
distinguish entrepreneurs (n = 54) from white collar managers (n = 57). All four of
the EAO subscales were independently significant at the 0.001 level. When entered
into a stepwise discriminant analysis (pp. 20–21), innovation, personal control and
self-esteem collectively provided, “…77 % accuracy in predicting group member-
ship using the classification function coefficients.”
Utsch et al. (1999) used Patchen’s (1965) interest in innovation scale to classify
75 East German Managers and 102 East German entrepreneurs. When combined,
the scores for the ‘readiness to change at work’ and ‘interest in innovation’ mea-
sures were able to predict the classification of managers and entrepreneurs, 80.6 %
and 79.3 % of the time, respectively, thereby implying that both scales were required
to develop such a high level of discrimination.
Hmieleski and Corbett (2008) used a novel research instrument to investigate the
influence of improvisational behavior and self-efficacy on new venture performance
with 159 firm founders. The researchers (p. 490) found that, “…the interaction of
improvisational behavior × entrepreneurial self-efficacy on new venture performance
is indeed positive and significant (β = .21, p < .01)…startups led by founders who
were high in entrepreneurial self-efficacy tended to grow at a greater rate when their
founders exhibited high levels of improvisational behavior, whereas startups led by
founders who were low in entrepreneurial self-efficacy tended to grow at a com-
paratively lower rate when their founders exhibited high levels of improvisational
behavior.”
Thresholds
Range of Applicability
The focus here is on the creativity of entrepreneurs. The extent to which the general
theory of entrepreneurial creativity can extend beyond entrepreneurship to predict
other business outcomes is unclear. Nonetheless, there are empirical studies that
suggest an extended (or extendable) range of applicability. One potentially informa-
tive study by Howell and Higgins (1990) investigated a broad range of
134 8 Creatividad empresarial
Contingencies
entrepreneurs to other folks, leaving open the possibility that the differences were
obtained during the experiences gained in an entrepreneurial career rather than
before…In other words, entrepreneurs may not be born, but they might be made.”
Conclusion
The third chapter of this book introduces the implicit small business theory of entre-
preneurship. The theory predicts that knowledge of each of the various management
disciplines positively influences new ventures outcomes. It is revealed that the theory
may possess value, though existing evidence does not yet weigh strongly in its favor.
Perhaps, the various parties involved with entrepreneurial endeavors maintain
belief in the functional areas of business because comfort is found in holding onto
business conventions. Each management discipline provide entrepreneurs with new
venture development checklists. Unfortunately, the checklists tend to be rather long
and overwhelming. It can easily be argued that there is an incredible array of tasks
required to transform the intellectual and physical infrastructure of a tiny start-up
into a large, successful company.
A second problem is that the management disciplines have yet to provide clear
direction regarding which actions to take first and/or which actions have the highest
return on investment. Some might argue that knowing the customer should be the
key driver of new venture development. This could imply an early requirement for
in-depth empathic product/service research (c.f. Leonard and Rayport 1997). It
could imply endless traditional market research. Supposedly, a budding entrepre-
neur should do enough market research to understand the customer and the
market – whatever that means, particularly given the limited budget available for
most new ventures (Bhidé 2000). Disturbing to this view however, it should be
noted here that one research stream indicates that it is dangerous to listen carefully
to what customers want when the anticipated products or services are based on new
technology unfamiliar to the customer (Christensen 1997). Then there is the prob-
lem of determining the best second and third steps, etc. – problems not assisted by
functional business knowledge.
The upside of the management disciplines is that they offer structures that aid in
understanding business problems. The functional disciplines organize problems by
type and shed light on business issues, including how some are interrelated. For
example, although market research might not have method in common with promo-
tion (e.g. preparing advertising copy), there are important conceptual linkages
between these two sub-disciplines. When market research is conducted effectively,
it can provide direction to those who design ancillary features of products, including
promotional copy.
Moving beyond conventional management thinking probably means moving
beyond the comfort of structure (i.e. statics) towards the confusion of process (i.e.
dynamics). The only thing perhaps delaying this shift in thinking might be the belief
that new venture business planning provides insight into what action steps to take
and when to take them. A recent meta-analysis (Brinckmann et al. 2010) indicates
that for new ventures, business planning offers at least some promise of value (mean
effect size = 0.13; p = 0.002). Beyond the limits of business planning is the complexity
and uncertainty that calls for creative decision making.
An Investment Theory of Entrepreneurial Creativity141
Improvisation: Tactics
Time
unexpected deals present themselves can control the development of a venture more
than any strategic pre-commitment on the part of the entrepreneur. For instance, a
new realization about a need for external funding, due to growth in an unanticipated
market segment, makes its own demands upon an entrepreneur.
The characterization of a business venture as a combination of deals or contracts
through time enables it to be represented as a dynamic entity. As a business grows,
it develops more and different contractual relationships with numerous collabora-
tors such as customers, suppliers of financial capital, real estate owners, and employees.
Each contract will vary in sophistication and potential for financial return. There
may also be synergistic effects produced by combinations of contracts.
Entrepreneurial Vision
Vision is about both ends and means – where one hopes to go and how one might
set about getting there. According to some scholars, entrepreneurship is vision-
driven (c.f. Tarabishy et al. 2005). Although the nature of an entrepreneurial vision
may vary in clarity and complexity, it may be useful for a budding entrepreneur to
spend substantial time crafting one (Rockey 1986). The importance of entrepreneur-
ial vision is underscored by Ensley et al. (2006), who examined owner/managers of
Inc. 500 companies. The researchers found that vision ‘scores’ can (1) distinguish
lead entrepreneurs from other team members and (2) account for differences in new
venture sales growth.
From a Schumpeterian perspective, the core of any entrepreneurial vision is a
new combination. At the core is a powerful synthesis, rather than simple addition of
Entrepreneurial Vision143
discrimination with respect to what activities entrepreneurs can delegate and what
they must accomplish and / or directly supervise themselves.
An alternative, and possibly more strategic, perspective might view a new venture
by its constraints. During early development, a new venture is characterized as loosely
constrained due to a small number of investments in ideas, actors and organizations.
Over time, strategic options become increasingly constrained as entrepreneurs add
greatly to the number of investments – to products, customers, employees, industry, a
marketing strategy, and so on. The process is thus one of successive constraint with
more creative latitude potentially offered earlier than later in the process.
Entrepreneurial Investments
A third example involves the search for accommodating suppliers. Many entrepreneurs
are faced with the prospect of harsh terms from suppliers as new ventures lack confi-
dence-inspiring track records. A fourth example involves the search for amenable
customers. For some products and services, entrepreneurs must be creative with
respect to selling in order to secure early customers (c.f. Wang and Netemeyer 2004).
Once entrepreneurs identify people and organizations with which they can do
business, they must create deals that benefit them in either the short or long term.
In order to effectively negotiate deals, entrepreneurs need to be able to appreciate
the various aspects of legal contracts and imagine how various terms and conditions
will impact their ventures in the future. Given that the other parties to contracts have
different interests, the ability to create (seemingly) mutually beneficial outcomes
under such adversity is of great significance.
Finally, entrepreneurship requires the continuing management of deals.
Entrepreneurs must be vigilant as some contracted parties may attempt to ignore
contractual obligations after some time in order to better self-interests elsewhere.
Ultimately, whether it concerns doing deals with employees, investors, customers,
or members of a board, entrepreneurs face more adversity than larger, more estab-
lished competitors.
Entrepreneurial Improvisation
The latter finding (p. 264) is further described as follows: “The crucial feature of this
process here is that the improvising team observes its own partially completed impro-
visational activity and makes sense of it in a way that shapes ongoing activity.”
Baker et al. (2003, p. 265) also provided examples of firms that cleverly made-do
with resources at hand in order to further various interests relating to customers,
financing, suppliers, office space, advice and employees. The researchers further
noted that when improvisation was available in the start-up decision, entrepreneurs
were less likely to deviate from prior lines of work.
Hmieleski and Corbett (2006) used a sample of 430 American college students
to investigate the effects of, among other things, personality, motivation, cognitive
style, social models, and improvisation on entrepreneurial intentions. The research-
ers found the strongest relationship between improvisation and entrepreneurial
intentions. Improvisation accounted for 20.3 % (p < 0.01) of the variance in partici-
pants’ intentions to start a new business.
In 2008, Hmieleski and Corbett used a sample of 159 American entrepreneurs to
investigate the moderating effect of entrepreneurial self-efficacy on the relationship
between founders’ improvisational behavior and new venture performance. The
researchers (p. 482) found that, “…the interaction of improvisational behav- ior ×
entrepreneurial self-efficacy on new venture performance is indeed positive and
significant (β = 0.21, p < 0.01).” The researchers (p. 491) conclude that, “…
entrepreneurs who are low in self-efficacy and frequently improvise might be shoot-
ing themselves in the foot. Improvisation for such individuals is more of a ‘craps
shoot,’ because they do not have the confidence to actively seek out how resources
might be recombined. Moreover, their lack of confidence in their abilities is likely
to stifle their attempts to improvise.”
In 2013, Hmieleski et al. (2013) used a sample of 207 American entrepreneurs to
examine the moderating effect of dispositional optimism on the relationship between
founders’ improvisational behavior and new venture performance. The researchers
(p. 143) found that, “…in dynamic environments, the effects of improvisational
behavior are greater (more positive) for firms led by entrepreneurs who are moder-
ate in optimism than for those led by entrepreneurs who are high in optimism.” The
result was significant at the p < 0.05 level.
influencing outcomes. Bankers use target outcomes as reference points and operate
by attempting to control risk with the existing structured problem spaces, avoiding
situations where they risk higher levels of personal responsibility.” They (p. 217,
italics in original) concluded that, “…entrepreneurship is more a problem-finding
process than merely a problem-solving one.”
Buttner and Gryskiewicz (1993) used the Kirton Adapation-Innovation
Instrument on a random sample of 300 American entrepreneurs to discover that
entrepreneurs can become creatively stale with respect to a venture over time. The
entrepreneurs in business (p. 27), “…two years or less were significantly more inno-
vative…than entrepreneurs in business more than eight years” which may suggest
that entrepreneurial creativity may die out over time when confined to a single ven-
ture. The result was significant at the p < 0.05 level.
Buttner and Gryskiewicz (1993) also found that more innovative entrepreneurs
started more businesses – an average of 2.4 new businesses versus 1.2 for the adap-
tor group (p < 0.03). This may indicate that entrepreneurs shift from venture to ven-
ture over time to help maintain their creative edge. Finally, the researchers found
that innovators and adapters allocated their time differently once in business.
Specifically, innovators appear to spend less time on administering ongoing activi-
ties than adapters during the life of a venture (p < 0.01). This finding suggests that
creative entrepreneurs tend to avoid getting mired by administration.
Armstrong and Hird (2009, p. 424) used a sample of 131 UK-based entrepre-
neurs to find that a difference in entrepreneurial drive between entrepreneurs who
operate in earlier stages of venture creation and growth versus those operating in
more established operations. The result was significant at the p < 0.01 level.
Entrepreneurial drive was defined as, “…the drive to create and grow a venture”
(Carland et al. 2002, p. 38).
A Provocative Study
ability to be innovative, which in turn implies not just invention but the resourcefulness
and ingenuity to market that invention successfully.”
There are a number of things that are provocative about the Khan (1987) study.
First, the VCs did not anticipate the predictive power of creativity. Second, the cre-
ativity measure was a global measure of creative performance. Third, the measure
is likely an after-the-fact measure of creative actions and outcomes observed by
each VC. Fourth, the assessments were done by people in a good position to make
such assessments because they were vitally interested in the performance of their
investees. Fifth, the measurement strategy is unique. Typically, people are assessed
on their creative potential before the fact. Instead of assessing the person, in all
likelihood, the VCs were assessing what they saw as creative outcomes produced by
the entrepreneur in the course of developing ventures. Fifth, from a collective per-
spective, the VCs were unknowingly assessing the role taken by creative action in
the development of ventures.
Chief amongst this study’s weaknesses is the uncertainty around the meaning of
the creativity measure. Is it truly possible that the creative actions of lead entrepre-
neurs could really have such a powerful impact on the relative performance of such
high potential firms?
Conclusions
Some model is needed of the process that follows being a creative entrepreneur but
precedes the success of his/her enterprise. Existing models of entrepreneurship are
not particularly useful as models of creative entrepreneurship. A dominant model is
the means-end model. There are however practical limits to the logic of rational
decision-making and to reliance on business knowledge in an entrepreneurial con-
text. Yet, it is not straight-forward to simply shift away from a rational, planning
model to one based on creativity. To suggest that entrepreneurs need to be creative
to be successful raises as many questions as it answers. This is particularly obvious
if one concludes that creativity is needed for something more than the application of
business technology to business problems. What is it that entrepreneurs are doing
that they need to do more creatively in order to be more successful?
A model of evolving entrepreneurial investments (i.e. commitments) is advanced
here to offer insights into the possible nature of entrepreneurial dynamics. There is
a lot to say about the entrepreneurial process of deal making under adversity, but in
particular, it is at least partially uncertain, ambiguous, unknowable, and uncontrol-
lable. Entrepreneurs must envisage their goals, as well as strategies for attaining
them. The process of entrepreneurship may contain substantial elements of tactical
improvisation, as well as purposeful strategy. The process also may involve borrow-
ing many useful ideas over time from other contexts in order to perfect a business
idea (e.g. Walton and Huey 1993). In summary, perhaps entrepreneurial creativity is
important just because the development of growth ventures presents entrepreneurs
with so many open-ended issues.
Chapter 10
Developing Entrepreneurial Creativity
There is strong empirical evidence that growth entrepreneurs are central to economic
development (e.g. Birch 1979, 1987; Wong et al. 2005). There is also evidence that
the people who develop growth ventures are markedly more creative than other
entrepreneurs (see Tables 6.4–6.6 in Chap. 6). However, entrepreneurial program-
ming is indifferently successful at producing growth entrepreneurs (c.f. Martin et al.
2013; Rideout and Gray 2013). It would appear, hence, that there is more to devel-
oping growth entrepreneurs than what currently occurs in classrooms.
It is the purpose of this chapter to review some of the evidence that relates to the
development of creative people within a number of different contexts. A better
appreciation of how creativity is acquired over time should foster a stronger under-
standing of how entrepreneurial creativity might be developed.
The evidence that pertains to the development of creativity implies that the
development of entrepreneurial creativity is a time consuming process taking many
years, spanning a number of life stages. Some aspects of creative entrepreneurship
may tend to become more solidified at younger ages than others. Parenting during
the youngest years can be important, as can preschool experiences. Primary and
secondary schooling appear to play roles. Even adult career choices can strongly
influence entrepreneurial direction.
On the issue of frequent relocation Drennan et al. (2005, p. 234) had the following
to offer:
An individual’s self-reliance and adaptability to new situations are related to entrepreneur-
ship, and such resilience and adaptability are associated with radical change during one’s
life. Moving location frequently is seen as one aspect of radical change (Davidsson 1995).
Reynolds (1995) found nascent entrepreneurs were less likely to have lived their whole
lives in the same geographical area and more likely to have lived in several places during
their lives. Davidsson (1995) related frequent moves to general attitudes related to change,
achievement, money (negative) and autonomy…
One might wonder how to square the findings which suggest that family func-
tionality is the basis of artistic or scientific creativity while family dis-functionality
seems to play a much greater role in the early up-bringing of entrepreneurs. Perhaps,
creative people, in general, need the support of a strong functional family up-
bringing, whereas creative entrepreneurs, in particular, have destructive elements in
their family backgrounds that shift them towards an entrepreneurial career. Negative
personal background influences may influence people to distrust others to the extent
that they want to work alone. Of course, it must be noted that the aforementioned
studies present nothing more than correlates and hence, it is entirely possible that
the influences that push people towards an entrepreneurial career path are different
than those that aid in their level of entrepreneurial success.
Then again, perhaps the studies that emphasize family functionality in the up-
bringing of creative children speak to the need to develop strong, imaginative and
independent people. The studies that emphasize family dysfunctionality may speak
to a need to socialize creative people and entrepreneurs alike, as somewhat more
marginal people: people who are at least mildly inclined to treat others as more means
than ends; people who are mildly independent of social constraints – distrusting of
others and fiercely committed to their own direction – not insiders, nor outsiders, but
rather marginal social actors driven to obsessive passions and/or extreme hours of
work. In any case, it is entirely possible that there is a dark side to both early entre-
preneurial preparation, specifically, and early creative preparation, in general.
152 10 Desarrollar la creatividad empresarial
According to Russ and Fiorelli (2010), specific cognitive, affective and play skills
and abilities are generally considered to be drivers of creative outputs. The specific
cognitive processes are listed as: divergent thinking; transformational abilities;
sensitivity to problems and problem finding; task persistence and willingness to
engage in a variety of problem-solving approaches; a wide knowledge base and
range of interests; insight and the ability to synthesize; and, evaluative ability. The
specific affective processes are affect expression and affective fantasy. The specific
play process related to creativity is pretend or improvisational play.
In order to foster creativity in a child, Russ and Fiorelli (2010, p. 245) prescribe
the following steps:
1. Give children time to engage in pretend play.
2. Encourage exploration of different domains of activities so the child can find
what they deeply enjoy and develop their talents and abilities.
3. Foster an environment in which a child feels safe and comfortable to express
ideas that are unconventional.
4. Reinforce and enjoy acts of everyday creativity.
5. Encourage independence in problem solving, keeping in mind the principles of
optimal challenge and frustration.
6. Encourage expression of feelings in verbal exchange, in pretend play, and in
other media, so the child learns to feel comfortable with feelings and to integrate
them into easily accessible memories.
Lobler (2006) argued that younger children exhibit more entrepreneurial spirit
than high school children, citing a study by Kourilsky (1980) which reported that
25 % of kindergarten children versus 3 % of high school students demonstrate
important entrepreneurial characteristics. He (p. 20) observed that:
…if we look carefully at children under the age of five or six we find several entrepreneurial
competencies to start a creative destruction. They are motivated to learn, they are interested
in many different topics, they do not care about conventions, they ask excellent questions,
they discover exciting things, they are impatient and so on.
Unfortunately, he (p. 20) found that, “Then they go to school and seem to unlearn
these competencies.” Young creative students are typically not treated well in the
education system. A number of studies have found that teachers often unfavorably
view the behaviors and personality traits of creative children (Torrance 1962; Raina
and Raina 1971; Rimm and Davis 1976; Ritchie 1980; Robinson 1980; Oliphant
1986; Cropley 1992; Davis and Rimm 1994; Scott 1999).
Westby and Dawson (1995) found a negative correlation between teachers’ judg-
ment regarding favorite students and student creativity. Teachers indicated a prefer-
ence for student characteristics that facilitate classroom management such as
unquestioning acceptance of authority; conformity; logical thinking; and, responsi-
bility. Other studies have also reported that teachers prefer socially acceptable and
conforming characteristics (Torrance 1963; Bachtold 1974; Kaltsounis 1977;
Kaltsounis and Higdon 1977).
Career Choices153
Post-Secondary Education
Career Choices
Not all career paths provide an effective launch pad for new venturing (e.g. the pub-
lic sector – Özcan and Reichstein 2009). The most obvious route to launching busi-
nesses appears to be past entrepreneurial experience (Carroll and Mosakowski
1987; Delmar and Davidsson 2000; Rotefoss and Kolvereid 2005). Dobrev and
Barnett (2005) found that new venture founders become increasingly likely to leave
and start new ventures as their current ventures age and grow.
Short of being an entrepreneur, working for an entrepreneur might be a useful
training ground, as spin-off studies testify (Dahlstrand 1997; Elfenbein et al. 2010).
There may be limits to the duration of the experience, though. Dobrev and Barnett
(2005, p. 445) found that employees of new ventures, “…become unlikely to leave
their organizations to build new ones as their organizations age and grow—evidence
that organizations are effective in shaping and constraining the innovative behavior
of their members.
There is also some evidence in favor of a diverse set of work experiences for
pursuing new ventures, rather than extensive experience in a single industry or
occupation (Wagner 2003; Lazear 2004). The evidence regarding the impact of
specific types of work experience on new venture success is not very clear at this
point. Kenworthy and McMullan (2010) reviewed related findings in 56 published
154 10 Desarrollar la creatividad empresarial
empirical articles and found that only 38 % of the work-experience hypotheses were
supported. Four studies produced findings that reached a high level of statistical
significance (i.e. p ≤ 0.001). The researchers (p. 16) noted that the,
strongest findings suggest that 1) business failure is mitigated via prior work experience in
a similar industry; 2) prior new venture experience positively influences revenues; 3) prior
similar business experience positively influences the amount of money that an entrepreneurs
draws from a business; and 4) prior similar business experience substantially reduces the
odds of exiting a new venture. Additional findings at the p ≤.01 level suggest that work
experience reduces the chance of failure and increases the probability of revenue growth
and firm profitability. However, the types of work experience that influence success are not
made clear from the findings. It is interesting to note that there is evidence, albeit weak, that
prior management experience hurts new venture survival probability.
Conclusion
There are a number of lenses through which one can view the relevance of the
entrepreneur to economic development. The first lens is that of Joseph Schumpeter.
Schumpeter’s theory (1934) is a description of an economy characterized by
repetitive cycles of business activity that are occasionally changed by entrepreneurs
who introduce new business combinations. The entrepreneur acts as the fundamen-
tal agent of change, responsible for all economic progress. Progress is thus attributed
primarily to a relatively small group of individuals, namely innovative entrepre-
neurs, rather than to more impersonal ‘institutions’ such as public education,
research and development, public infrastructure and/or the functioning of economic
institutions such as central banks and stock markets.
A second lens is that of Blanchflower and Oswald (1992). The scholars
developed two competing models to explain the general supply of entrepre- neurs
within any economy. Their (1992, pp. 3–4) first model, characterized by free entry
and no entrepreneurial rents, is a variant of competitive labor market theory:
According to the theory, individuals are able to enter whichever labour market they wish,
and running an enterprise comprises one of those occupational markets. Individual 1 weighs
up his or her talents and interests and chooses a career path. If entrepreneurship gives higher
utility than being a regular worker, individual 1 will be more prone to choose to enter that
line of work. Thus he or she will be more likely to set up in business…Given free entry,
long-run equilibrium has the characteristic that the utility of entrepreneurs has been pushed
down until it equals the utility of employees.
A third lens, developed by Nobel laureate Robert Solow, ties economic develop-
ment to innovation, particularly that of a technological nature, rather than entrepre-
neurship. Solow (1957) identified the central dominant role of innovation in
economic development by studying US macroeconomic data from 1909 through
1949. He (p. 320) concluded that, “Gross output per man hour doubled over the
interval, with 87½ percent of the increase attributable to technical change and the
remaining 12½ per cent to increased use of capital.”
The economic character and consequences of innovation has been under the
scholarly microscope for some time. Rosenberg (1976, p. 192) found that large
influential innovations were typically composed of many small ones: “The essential
point to be grasped here is that inventive activity is itself, best described as a gradual
process of accretion, a cumulation of events where, in general, continuities are
much more important than discontinuities…Thus, even the big technological break-
throughs which are associated with such names as Darby, Watt, Cort, and Bessemer,
usually have much more gently declining slopes of cost reduction flowing from
their technical contributions than the historical literature would lead us to expect.”
Bhidé (2000, p. 331) provides an example of the incremental nature of innovation
leading to sensational change:
Automobile manufacture began in the United States in 1893, when the Duryea brothers of
Springfield, Massachusetts, built a carriage powered by a one-cylinder motor. Six years
later, in 1899, many individuals and about 30 American companies had built a grand total
of some 2,500 vehicles. Ten years later, reports the U.S. Bureau of the Census, total car
registrations reached 32,900 vehicles, with 11,200 passenger vehicles sold in 1903. The
‘unification’ phase of the automobile industry in the United States, which, according to
historians McCraw and Tedlow led to the development of a mass market, did not begin until
the introduction of Ford’s Model T. This was 1908, fifteen years after the Duryea brothers
and twenty-three years after the Daimler-Benz vehicles.
The very idea of innovation as the implementation of creative ideas raises the
question of the identity of the innovator. Different scholars since Schumpeter have
seen entrepreneurship as a major vehicle for the introduction of innovations. Some
scholars such as Davidsson (2003) even go so far as to even view all innovation as
a form of entrepreneurship. Specifically, Davidsson (2003) proposes that entrepre-
neurial activity encompasses both new ventures, and innovative and imitative entries
into new markets by established firms. According to Wong et al. (2005, p. 337),
Davidsson implies that, “…existing models linking innovation to growth have in
fact addressed a specific aspect of entrepreneurship, that of innovative entry.”
The Entrepreneur in Economic Development157
It is worth noting that the impact of total entrepreneurial activity (TEA) may not
be quite so dire for some types of economies. Wennekers et al. (2005) used GEM
data to provide evidence for a U-shaped relationship between the economic impact
of the number of people in an economy starting businesses, on the one hand, and per
capita income and an innovative capacity on the other – all under three levels of
economic development. According to the researchers, TEA is a positive economic
force in factor-driven economies – ones in which production is driven by mobiliza-
tion of the primary production factors of land, primary commodities and unskilled
labor. In an investment-driven economy, characterized by more developed labor and
capital markets and foreign direct investment, TEA is a less effective, and poten-
tially negative, contributor to economic growth. In a knowledge or innovation-driven
economy, TEA once again becomes a more positive contributor to economic growth.
Ultimately, entrepreneurship must be both a cause and an effect of economic
development. At any time, the growth entrepreneur is likely a productive contributor
to economic development and as such, a causal contributor. Some growth entrepre-
neurs generate exports that produce increased wealth for a country. A growth of
national wealth, in turn, creates effective demand for goods and services to which
other entrepreneurs can more easily react.
So the growth segments of the economy are those whose products and services have
relatively short half-lives; the stagnant and declining ones feature products with longer
ones. Anyway you look at it, innovation remains the basic theme. Short product half-lives
and high innovation rates are, of course, simply different ways of saying the same thing.
Both depend upon creativity, which is the hallmark of those small entrepreneurial compa-
nies we have been discussing. (Birch 1987, p. 63)
Birch (1987) argued that the variation in the proportion of high-growth entrepre-
neurs across regions was driven by five factors: the general level of education of the
population in the region; the presence of quality research universities; the amount of
money spent by local government; the quality of telecommunications infrastructure;
and, the attractiveness of the area to well educated people.
The research efforts undertaken since Birch’s findings have supported and/or
added to his key criteria. A reasonable amount of research shows that scientific and
technological creativity is important to entrepreneurial activity. There is a mixed
evidence base underlying the proposition that artistic creativity in a region contrib-
utes to the amount of creative entrepreneurship. There is mixed evidence regarding
how community values may direct creativity towards or away from entrepreneur-
ship. There is also evidence indicating the relevance of the supports and barriers to
the entrepreneurial process provided or imposed by local institutions.
The macro-model of economic development in Exhibit 11.1 represents an
attempt to modify Schumpeter’s notion of economic development to include the
aforementioned factors that influence growth entrepreneurship. Each factor of the
macro-model is discussed in the following sections.
Scientific and Technological Creativity159
Scientific and
Technological Entrepreneurial
Creativity Culture / Values
Education for
Creative Entrepreneurial Economic
Development Creativity Development
According to Rosenberg (1976, p. 189), “The rate at which new techniques are
adopted and incorporated into the productive process is, without doubt, one of the
central questions of economic growth.” A number of empirical studies suggest that
a link does exist between the implementation of scientific and technological creative
outputs and entrepreneurial creativity. Dean and Meyer (1992) found that the new
firm formation rate in manufacturing industries was positively influenced by
research and development intensity. Dean and Brown (1995) and Dean et al. (1998)
also found a similar effect across a number of industries. Eckhardt and Shane (2011,
p. 412) also found that new venture opportunities are positively influenced by tech-
nological innovation: “…increases in the proportion of employment of scientists
and engineers in industries are positively associated with counts of fast-growing
new firms.”
There is also some evidence indicating that small firm innovation influences new
venture formation rates. Acs and Audretsch (1989) examined small firm entry rates
in 247 industries and found that the new firm entry rate was higher in industries
characterized by relatively higher small firm innovation rates.
Finally, there is indirect evidence that post-secondary activities may impact new
venture rates. Goldstein and Drucker (2006) found that knowledge-based activities
at US-based universities, particularly teaching and basic research, exhibited
substantially positive effects on regional earnings gains.
160 11 Hacia una macroteoría de la creatividad empresarial
The idea that some communities might be more creative than others is not a new
idea. The further notion that this creativity might spill-over and separately impact
the creativity in specific fields is more formative. The idea that the artistic commu-
nity might impact the entrepreneurial community is one such relationship that has
received current attention from a number of researchers.
In 2002, Richard Florida presented evidence for the relevance of artistic creativ-
ity to entrepreneurship. His proxy for artistic creativity in a city, the Bohemian
Index (BI), was defined using proportional employment in artistic and creative
occupations. Gertler et al. (2002) found strong relationships between the bohemian
index and high-technology industrial output in both US-based and Canadian cities.
Lee et al. (2004) found that the overall rate of new firm formation is directly
impacted by cultural creativity. According to the authors (p. 881), their thinking was
drawn from an intellectual tradition of thinking about cities and regions as incuba-
tors of innovation:
An influential line of research suggests that cities and regions function as ‘incubators’ of
creativity and innovation and that human capital factors in particular play an important role
in spurring regional growth (Park et al. 1925; Jacobs 1961; Thompson 1965; Lucas 1988).
Park et al. initially called attention to the role of cities in concentrating and spurring human
creativity. Jacobs later explained how cities function as ‘open systems’ to attract talented
people from various backgrounds and stimulate their creative capacities. Lucas formalized
the insights of Jacobs to provide a basic theory, arguing that cities function as collectors of
human capital, thus generating new ideas and economic growth.
The data that Lee et al. (2004) used covered both cities and economic zones
constituting the US. The creativity index coefficients were all significant at the 0.01
level and they successively explained 26.2 % of start-ups overall (45.4 % of manu-
facturing start-ups and 20.7 % of service start-ups). The authors (p. 887) conclude
that, “…there is a close and positive relationship between entrepreneurship and
creativity in a region.”
The relationship between artistic creativity and economic growth is not nearly as
straightforward as that for entrepreneurship. Marlet and van Woerkens (2004) found
that the BI only predicted employment growth in one (Amsterdam) of the 50 largest
Dutch cities. Rausch and Negrey (2006, p. 482) investigated US-based metropolitan
statistical areas (MSA) and found that, “…it does not appear that merely adding
creative class individuals in an MSA will lead to a stronger economy in terms of
GNP.” Donegan et al. (2008, p. 189) also focused research on the US and found that
the BI was not relevant to job growth.
Reese et al. (2010) examined midsized Canadian metropolitan areas and failed to
find a relationship between the BI and overall economic health and growth. Polèse
(2012) examined 135 Canadian cities and did not find a consistently significant
relationship between arts-related employment and subsequent employment growth.
Finally, Marrocu and Paci (2012) found no impact of the presence of bohemians on
Barriers to and Supports of Creative Entrepreneurship161
environment factors are societal wealth, economic stability, capital availability and
marginal tax rates. There is supporting evidence for the influence of societal wealth
on new venture rates (c.f. Audretsch and Acs 1994; Shane 1996). There is mixed
evidence for the impact of economic stability, as measured by the inflation rate (c.f.
Djankov et al. 2010; McMillan and Woodruff 2002). There is mixed evidence
regarding the influence of capital availability (c.f. Pennings 1982; McMillan and
Woodruff 2002; Kreft and Sobel 2005). There is also mixed evidence for the impact
of marginal tax rates (c.f. Gentry and Hubbard 2000; Schuetze and Bruce 2004;
Bruce and Mohsin 2006).
Political environment factors include political freedom, property rights and the
degree of centralization of power. There is very limited evidence regarding the
influence of political freedom on new venture rates. The existing evidence is
focused on economic development, which may be a proxy for entrepreneurial activ-
ity (c.f. Ali and Crain 2002; Roll and Talbott 2003). There is indirect evidence
regarding the influence of property rights. Weymouth and Broz (2013, p. 230)
report that, “…transitions to more right-wing governments are associated with
improved perceptions of property rights among firm owners.” There is as yet no
direct evidence regarding the influence of degree of centralization of power on new
venture rates.
The socio-cultural environment factors are general attitudes and beliefs about
entrepreneurial activity and the presence of entrepreneurial role models. The exist-
ing evidence for attitudes and belief is suggestive that pro-entrepreneurial attitudes
and beliefs impact economic growth at the regional level (Beugelsdijk and
Noorderhaven 2004; Sternberg and Litzenberger 2004; Tamásy 2006; Bosma and
Schutjens 2011). There is a small amount of evidence supporting the efficacy of
role models and new venture intentions (van Auken et al. 2006).
Education
Birch (1987) found that the general level of education in a region and the pres-
ence of quality research universities promoted economic development. There is a
substantial body of evidence indicating the importance of education to macro-
economic development (Becker 1993). There are also a number of studies which
indicate a positive relationship between general education levels and rates of new
venture initiation (c.f. Schell and David 1981; Bull and Winter 1991; Grant 1996;
Black and Strahan 2002; Guesnier 1994). The evidence for the role of universi-
ties as regional engines of economic growth is mixed (see Anselin et al. 1997 for a
review).
Conclusion163
Conclusion
Abstract So what are the implications of this general social science theory of
entrepreneurship? How might it affect the behavior of entrepreneurs, education pro-
gramming, research agendas, and the future redesign of the entrepreneurship
discipline?
This book might be described as a tale of three general theories. The first is an
implicit theory – the small business theory of entrepreneurship. The second is
Shane’s (2003) general theory – an organizing framework for empirical findings
impacting opportunity identification and execution. The third theory is the general
scientific theory of entrepreneurial creativity, to which the bulk of the book has been
dedicated. Each theory has some peculiar strengths and weaknesses. They may be
viewed as both complementary and competitive.
The implicit small business theory of entrepreneurship is strong in the sense that
it is tied to a sizeable body of knowledge in the field of business. The theory is weak
in that it is not well explicated, leaving open fundamental questions. Should one
expect business knowledge in general to be relevant or only select aspects of
business knowledge that have been screened for usefulness in a new venture setting?
Are all management tools appropriate? Does the usage of each tool provide a
positive return on investment? There does not appear to be any general way of
knowing what business knowledge will be most relevant at what stage of business
development. The field may have to empirically test all of the various permutations
and combinations within myriad possible entrepreneurial contexts to discover the
answers unless some intelligent theorizing is forthcoming.
Shane’s (2003) general theory of entrepreneurship is for the most part a frame-
work for organizing empirical entrepreneurship findings. It may encourage the
extraction of more pragmatically promising findings from the growing abundance
of empirical research. However, one cannot expect Shane’s theory to be true or
predictive in any scientifically testable sense. Although the theory may be useful
to help compile the findings of scholars, one cannot expect it to provide direction
to researchers, other than to suggest further elaboration of earlier findings.
The overarching general principle resulting from this book is: an entrepreneur’s
need for creativity is proportional to an entrepreneur’s aspirations. This prin-
ciple is derived from the theory and scientific findings that appear to support it.
General Principles from the General Theory of Entrepreneurial Creativity167
A series of additional, distinct principles can be drawn from the book. They are
provided below with some brief, related remarks.
1. Entrepreneurship is a major challenge if your aspiration is to develop a success-
ful growth company.
(a) Many entrepreneurship enthusiasts (educators and advisors) encourage all
their students to believe that entrepreneurial success is a distinct likelihood
for everyone. How much value such enthusiasm provides should be care-
fully considered.
2. Entrepreneurs should not expect to extract much value from a business school
education until their firms becomes mid-sized or larger.
(a) The concepts and techniques of the management disciplines do not appear,
at this time, to much increase the odds of new venture success. The applica-
tion of some concepts and techniques may even reduce the odds of success
by putting additional uneconomical demands on a business.
3. Potential and existing entrepreneurs might derive value from relevant social
science findings if they are more frequently exposed to them.
(a) It is not easy to develop an appreciation of social science research.
Nonetheless, exposure to the body of theory and scientific findings repre-
sents the best means of acquiring reasonably robust knowledge.
4. Schumpeter’s insight into the creative character of entrepreneurial growth ven-
tures is an important inspiration for our times.
(a) There is little doubt that Schumpeter’s ideas continue to exert a tremendous
influence on the entrepreneurship field. It is impressive that scholars con-
tinue to appreciate and utilize his ideas so many decades later.
5. Entrepreneurial creativity may explain a sizeable range of existing findings in
the field of entrepreneurship.
(a) There is little doubt that there are complexities contained in the notion of
entrepreneurial creativity. Nevertheless, it appears useful and straightfor-
ward relative to the alternative of hundreds of free-standing propositions
attempting to explain entrepreneurial performance bit by bit.
6. As a general social science theory, the theory of entrepreneurial creativity
compares favorably to existing standards.
(a) The general theory of crime (Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990) greatly influ-
enced its field, generating thousands of academic citations since its publica-
tion in 1990. It would appear that the general theory of entrepreneurial
creativity can influence substantially both the entrepreneurship and
creativity fields.
168 12 Algunas implicaciones y conclusiones
1
The search for economic gain without reciprocal value.
Normative Implications of the General Theory of Entrepreneurial Creativity171
As a concluding note, it is useful to ask, “What are the real moral imperatives
behind entrepreneurship and is it reasonable to expect them to be similar for all
entrepreneurs?” Some would advocate profit maximization and wealth creation, as
is emphasized by the logic of economics. Some would advocate the introduction
and diffusion of new technology. Others might suggest service to people, as empha-
sized by many religions. Ultimately, there are a mix of values and potential purposes
lying behind the institution of entrepreneurship.
As Baumol (2004) made clear, entrepreneurship has to be about something more
than self-enrichment or we would have to include a substantial range of socially
undesirable activities into the subject. Crime that makes money would be
entrepreneurship. Political corruption that is profitable might be a really advanced
form of entrepreneurship. Even war can be interpreted in entrepreneurial terms.
If entrepreneurship is to be viewed as a socially-responsible social institution,
however, it is necessary to appreciate what constitutes entrepreneurial contributions.
Some people create sole enterprises that only partly provide for their families. Those
who create profitable businesses may more typically hire people and pay taxes into
the public coffers. Providing employment can be construed as an important social
goal, given that psychological well-being is markedly affected by employment
status (e.g. Payne and Jones 1987). The maintenance and growth of the tax base
represents an opportunity to improve public infrastructure and social services.
At increasingly demanding levels of entrepreneurial contribution, there are con-
cerns that entrepreneurs not create shoddy or dangerous products, or that they mis-
represent their products to the public. There are concerns that entrepreneurs manage
their employees with some minimal level of humanity. There are concerns that they
not con or manipulate investors. There are also concerns about the treatment of all
other parties to whom entrepreneurs may be contractually bound, such as suppliers
and buyers.
A still higher level of challenge and social contribution is that of creativity and
innovation. Entrepreneurs can be judged against the quality and significance of the
innovations (technological, managerial and otherwise) that they bring forth, given
that entrepreneurship is the main avenue for introducing innovation. Further, entre-
preneurs can be judged by the extent to which they conduct business in an environ-
mentally sustainable fashion.
It is entirely possible that at some point in the not too distant future, entrepre-
neurs will be judged by the extent to which their contributions maintain or foster
well-being and happiness. Increasingly, we are becoming aware that material con-
sumption does not add in a substantial way to happiness. Peiro (2006, p. 349) finds
that, “Today, there exists a certain consensus in that: (i) over time, happiness does
not increase significantly with per capita income, at least in developed countries
(Easterlin 1995; Blanchflower and Oswald 2004) and (ii) people in richer countries
are happier than people in poorer ones, though the relationship does not seem to be
linear.” Such findings should not be taken lightly because measures of subjective
A Hierarchic Model of Moral Entrepreneurial Imperatives173
Environmental Responsibility
and
Contribution to Happiness
well-being may be surprisingly robust. Here, Peiro (2006, p. 349) finds that, “…
people who call themselves happy are more likely to be rated as happy by friends
and less likely to suffer from psychosomatic illnesses, to attempt suicide or to seek
psychological counseling (Frank 1985, 1997).”
Recent evidence suggests that happiness is brought about by certain circum-
stances and accomplishments, things such as being married, employed and edu-
cated – things not easily purchased with money (Blanchflower and Oswald 2005).
Social and economic policy may begin to change to meet the growing understanding
of personal well-being. Entrepreneurs will need to make adjustments, accordingly.
What emerges for them is a hierarchy of social contributions (see Fig. 12.1 above).
Behind this Maslovian-style pyramid is the notion that the entrepreneur will
enrich her or himself by ascending the hierarchy. The entrepreneur moves from
basic survival needs on the first two levels towards being and becoming needs on the
last three (Maslow 1968). Those who are most enlightened and the most financially
successful will have most to offer, and at the highest reaches of the pyramid they
will find a way to make their offering real to the people around them without undue
damage to the environment. That entrepreneurs appear to be largely intrinsically
motivated may indicate that if they internalize such values as part of their living and
education, they will be more willing to strive towards them.
174 12 Algunas implicaciones y conclusiones
Research Implications
A general scientific theory can provide substantial focus for scholarly research. The
general theory of crime, for example, has elicited thousands of academic citations
and a meta-analysis (Pratt and Cullen 2000) since its publication in 1990. This is an
astounding impact for a scholarly work in any field.
Questions remain about the character of the impact of the various creative
resources upon new venture success. Many areas, such as the creative aspects of
intelligence and of thinking styles, have not been well studied as of yet. Relevant
models of entrepreneurial knowledge will need to be developed. In addition to better
understanding the individual resources and their respective subscales, it will be nec-
essary to understand their relative impacts as well. Further, scholars will need to
discover resource thresholds, and the nature and extent of resource confluence.
Entrepreneurship scholars may be encouraged to conduct studies of great entre-
preneurs in a similar fashion to how creativity scholars have examined the back-
ground, character, behavior and accomplishments of great contributors in other
creative fields. Such work may lead to insights brought forth by examining similari-
ties and differences amongst the various types of highly creative individuals.
Along the way, entrepreneurship scholars may struggle with some of the same
problems encountered by creativity scholars (Mayer 1999).
• What are the distinctive characteristics of entrepreneurially creative people?
• How do we measure someone’s creative entrepreneurial potential?
• What are the biological and evolutionary bases of entrepreneurial creativity?
• Which cognitive resources and processes are most germane to entrepreneurial
creativity?
Research Implications177
Many of the questions faced by the creativity and entrepreneurship fields are
similar. It appears reasonable that the insights and knowledge generated by the for-
mer field could be meaningfully imported into the latter field with potential syner-
gies for both fields, particularly given the empirical support demonstrated in this
book. It does, however, make sense to draw distinctions between entrepreneurship
and creativity. First, in contrast to creativity, the field of entrepreneurship is not
centered on psychology. Second, creativity is not domain-specific but is a general
concept common to all creative domains. When creativity is applied, the elements
of the domain need to be emphasized. Musical creativity, for instance, will probably
emphasize the music more than the creativity. In the case of entrepreneurship, the
many domain specific issues around the identification and exploitation of opportu-
nities will also be expected to play a large role in this creative discipline.
In the case of the creativity discipline, entrepreneurship might be viewed as a
finalizing part of the creative process – the part, where creative people promote and
sell their ideas, and the part where innovation takes over from basic creativity. In
any case, this general theory of entrepreneurial creativity is a relatively comprehen-
sive, applied theory of creativity. The creativity discipline may need to encourage
related scientific theorizing in other applied creative domains.
Ultimately, at least some scholars have been advocating a more complete con-
nection between entrepreneurship and creativity. Here, Brazeal (1999, p. 34) argues,
“The importance of studying entrepreneurship through the solidification of broader
parameters that encase complementary fields cannot be overstated. At a minimum,
the conceptual exploration of a rudimentary process model may facilitate studies
within and across the three arenas of entrepreneurship – innovation, change and
creativity…”
In Summary
The entrepreneurship field needs broad scientific theories that not only predict size-
able amounts of performance variance but also explain a broad swath of existing
findings. The general theory of entrepreneurial creativity has the potential to be such
a theory. It should be added to the existing spectrum of general theories used to
guide understanding of this relatively new field. If the relative advantages of the
GTEC persist in subsequent research then our understanding of entrepreneurship
should shift accordingly. We should adjust not only our research emphasis but also
our education programming in this direction. However our understanding evolves,
creative entrepreneurs should continue to be an inspiration to us all.
References
Abra J (1993) Competition: creativity’s vilified motive. Genet Soc Gen Psychol Monogr
119(3):291–343
Abra J (1995) Do the muses dwell in Elysium? Death as a motive for creativity. Creativity Res
J 8(3):205–217
Abra J, Abra G (1999) Collaboration and competition. In: Runco M (ed) The encyclopedia of
creativity, vol 1. Academic, San Diego, pp 283–293
Acs ZJ, Audretsch DB (1989) Small-firm entry in US manufacturing. Economica 56:255–265
Adelson B (1984) When novices surpass experts: the difficulty of a task may increase with exper-
tise. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 10(3):483–495
Ajayi-Obe O, Parker SC (2005) The changing nature of work among the self-employed in the
1990s: evidence from Britain. J Labor Res XXVI(3):501–517
Alam SS (2011) Entrepreneur’s traits and firm innovation capability: an empirical study in
Malaysia. Asian J Technol Innov 19(1):53–66
Albert RS, Runco MA (1999) A history of research on creativity. In: Sternberg RJ (ed) Handbook
of creativity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 16–31
Aldrich H (1999) Organizations evolving. Sage, London
Alegre J, Chiva R (2013) Linking entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: the role of
organizational learning capability and innovation performance. J Small Bus Manage 51(4):
491–507
Ali AM, Crain WM (2002) Institutional distortions, economic freedom and growth. Cato J 21(3):
415–426
Allinson CW, Hayes J (1996) The Cognitive Style Index: a measure of intuition-analysis for organ-
isational research. J Manage Stud 33(1):119–135
Allinson CW, Chell E, Hayes J (2000) Intuition and entrepreneurial behavior. Eur J Work Organ
Psychol 9(1):31–43
Almus M, Nerlinger EA (1999) Growth of new technology-based firms: which factors matter?
Small Bus Econ 13:141–154
Altinay L, Madanoglub M, Daniele R, Lashleya C (2012) The influence of family tradition and
psychological traits on entrepreneurial intention. Int J Hospital Manage 31:489–499
Amabile TM (1983) The social psychology of creativity. Springer, New York
Amabile TM (1996) Creativity in context. Westview, Boulder
Amabile TM (1997) Entrepreneurial creativity through motivational synergy. J Creative Behav
31(1):18–26