Imacs 2016 imecs 2016 Proceedings (Preliminary version) of the 4
MOTIVATION TO START-UP A BUSINESS IN RELATIONSHIP TO INNOVATIONS: DOES “GOOD” MOTIVATION REALLY MATTER?
Download 2.73 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- 371.Introduction
- 372.1 Individual motivation to start-up and innovativeness
- 373.2 Innovative potential of SMEs in the Moravian-Silesian Region
- 2.1 Primary data collection and data sample description
- 2.2 Results of Innovative activity
- 374.Conclusion
- 375.Acknowledgment
MOTIVATION TO START-UP A BUSINESS IN RELATIONSHIP TO INNOVATIONS: DOES “GOOD” MOTIVATION REALLY MATTER?370.Jarmila Šebestová – Zuzana PalováAbstract A motivation to start up could affect all near future of the business unit. This situation is described on case of Moravian-Silesian Region. These results are based on field survey study between 215 entrepreneurs in the Moravian-Silesian region in 2015, where we found a significant relationship between start up motivation and innovations, then affected by company location. The paper argues that level of innovative behaviour is higher in SMEs which have owner-managers who were pull motivated in start-up and lower in those which have owner-managers who are not satisfied with local entrepreneurial conditions. Product innovations are closely connected with opportunity seeking motive to start up (52%). Some start-up entrepreneurs only begin because they would otherwise remain unemployed (5%). In final part of the paper, factor analysis is made to find out main factors, which lead to innovations as stress on size, willingness to participate in education process, strategic thinking or start-up motivation. Key words: motivation, start-up, innovation, Moravian-Silesian Region JEL Code: L26, O31 371.IntroductionSuccessful entrepreneurship is based on a myriad of factors impacting on future business performance, particularly in the area of creativity and innovation (Watson, Scott, 1998). In long term business observations, regional differences in entrepreneurial capital and their output are mentioned and we found only a small group of true entrepreneurs (in the sense of innovators). Some are content with the same wage rate as is usual in the given region and therefor they avoid taking risks in their future business, these are some of the reasons, why they do not plan any innovations. (Santarelli, Vivarelli, 2006). The main goal of this paper is to compare and contrast the relationship between the self-motivation to start-up a business and the innovative spirit based on inter-district differences in the Moravian-Silesian region. Primary research data from 215 “established” companies was used, when new positive trends between the motivation to start-up a business and innovations were identified as a source of sustainability, Hayward et al., 2006). The uniqueness of the presented data can be seen in the connection between two factors (innovation and motivation) in established business which are not mentioned in published studies in current literature (Viturka, 2010; Šúbertová, Kinčáková, 2014). Many studies exist regarding start-up aspirations and motivation, but these studies mainly concentrate on "new" businesses (Lukeš, Jakl, 2012; Cassar, 2006). 372.1 Individual motivation to start-up and innovativenessThe individual motivation of an entrepreneur affects not only the perception of the business environment, but also future business success (Lukeš, Zouhar, 2013; Rauch, Frese, 2007). Unfortunately, when higher social security payments are available in certain regions, most people will not be interested in taking the risk of starting their own business and as such to be innovative. (Hessels, van Gelderen, Thurik, 2008) The motivation to start-up a business with the idea of growth by innovation is often low. Previous studies showed us that this idea is supported by only 33% of business founders. Most of them could be described as “irrational economic entities”, who place greater value on their own satisfaction than their need for approval by society for being innovative (Wang, Walker, Redmond, 2007). Stevenson, Jarillo (1990) reminded us that entrepreneurial success is based on entrepreneurial characteristics (personality, background, skills) and the influence of a socio-economic environment. On the other hand, this is not the only influence for start-ups; entrepreneurial self-efficacy also plays its part and could indeed mould the future of a specific business – i.e. whether to play the role of survivor or innovator. To sum up, the motivation to start-up a business may well directly affect the future success of the business, particularly in the field of innovation (Hopp, Stephan, 2012). The existence of sub-regional differences is one theoretically plausible explanation for spatial variations in innovative activity within districts and it is necessary for Community-Led Local Development planning within EU requirements.
Surveyed companies fulfilled the criteria of (1) being designated as small and medium sized companies by their number of employees – fewer than 250, (2) operating a business in the area of the Moravian-Silesian Region and (3) agreeing to a personal visit during autumn 2014. The questionnaire covered four significant areas which form the basis of the analytical part and are the foundation for model generation. The questionnaire structure corresponded to the cross-section of activities connected with their business: Main motivation for founding an enterprise and the evaluation of the environment for micro-financing, cooperation, change of the legal status. Description of barriers or problems, which could lead to the termination of activities in an industry, based on the Porter forces analysis within an industry. Relations to institutions (MS Region, municipality). Evaluation of strategic thinking, innovativeness and behaviour (strategy, personnel policy, innovation activities). To identify factors that currently influence innovativeness of small and medium-sized enterprises in the Moravian-Silesian Region and have impacts on the sustainability of their business activities, owing to the quantitative nature of the acquired data, the factor analysis was applied. During data collection more than 400 respondents were randomly selected. Finally, we obtained 215 valid responses (response rate of 53.8%). Researchers conducted several random checks for internal consistency in responses when Cronbach's Alpha was in whole sample 0.845. The research was conducted throughout the Moravian-Silesian Region, and the representation of individual districts was as follows: Bruntál (2.8%), Frýdek-Místek (18.1%), Karviná (29.8%), Nový Jičín (10.2%), Opava (7.0%) and Ostrava – město (32.1%). Percentage of the respondents in each district corresponds to the structure of economically active enterprises within Moravian-Silesian Region. As was mentioned we focused on primary impulse to their start up (according Lukeš & Jakl 2012 divided as push and pull motives). We understand that some respondents could evaluate their starting point more optimistically, but in addition to this we compared this motive with their innovations and their satisfaction with condition for providing business in their district. It is logical, that respondents, who were more satisfied, they had “pull motive” as starting point. Tab. 1: Relationship between entrepreneurial satisfaction and start-up motives
Source: own research As being illustrated in table 1, the relationship between overall satisfaction and main start up motives was significant in four from six districts. Different values we obtained in Bruntál, where overall satisfaction is high, but motives are in average. In opposite situation is district of Nový Jičín, where many businesses in the sample are in age of 5 years and less, so they are more critical on business environment. 2.2 Results of Innovative activityThe main positive result was that nearly 96% of respondents answered, that they produced innovation in last three years. We compared results from motive and main innovation in the sample. (Fig. 1). There are dominating self-realization motives and product innovations. It has been founded a strong relationship between the localization of enterprise in the region and innovation (Cramer's V = 0.524, sig = 0.063, the level of α = 0.1). The inter-district comparison, innovations are the most important indicator for the district Ostrava-Město (Cramer's V = 0.665, sig = 0.002, the level of α = 0.05) and Frýdek-Místek (Cramer's V = 0.391, sig = 0.003, the level of α = 0.05). Fig. 1: Main motive to start-up and type of innovation 
Source: own research Secondly, we confirmed positive relationship between main start-up motive and type of innovation (Cramer's V = 0.544, sig = 0.075, the level of α = 0.1), when product innovation is dominating in case of self-realization motive. In comparison to previous results a detailed analysis was made (Tab.2). Tab. 2: Innovations in relationship to start-up motive
Source: own research When the innovative approach to start-up is applied (new opportunity), then product innovation is dominating in this case. On the other hand, when the entrepreneur was motivated by own unemployment, main area of innovations is not significant. The factor analysis (see the Tab. 3) revealed most of the important areas relating to innovative entrepreneurship, where six factor groups were extracted and the explanatory power of this model is 62.5%. Basic tests to rate the adequacy of the sample for the analysis were conducted (Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy, KMO = 0.571, Communalities variance was 0.6). The method of principal components (PCA) was applied for extraction of factors. The objective of this method is to find underlying and therefore hidden (artificial, non-measurable, latent) variables (hereinafter referred to as components) that sufficiently explain the original variability of the variables, for which the VARIMAX factor rotation was employed. After that procedure we were able to model our table of significant factors of innovative entrepreneurship in the region.
Source: own research The figure in brackets is the value of the correlation coefficient of the given factor which is referred to as factor loading. The factors of the value exceeding 0.4 are considered as significant. The sign of “ - ” shows the negative tie in the factor. We could divide those factor into those groups: Innovation input factors, which are defined as sources of innovations – sources of innovative potential (people, financial issues, research), motivation (opportunity seeking on the market). Innovation output factors, which cover implemented innovations in area of technical or strategic innovations. Innovation impact factors, which motivate owners to extend their activities into cooperation and motivate them to participate actively in education process. Unfortunately, negative ties could be seen in cooperation at conferences in relationship with graduates (companies expect some results before hiring a graduate) or negative tie between new process and organizational change, which, in many cases cause reduction in number of employees. 374.ConclusionOur research highlighted local impact of entrepreneurship activity, what is a main limitation of presented study. Consequently, ownership motivation must be taken as a starting point to understanding the issue of SME innovativeness. Despite these limitations, the relationships between the type of individual motivation and innovation activities on the one hand and willingness to cooperate on the other hand show the potential for motivation and support of networking. 375.AcknowledgmentThis paper was financially supported by the project SGS SU 16/2015. 376.ReferencesCassar, G. (2006). Entrepreneur opportunity costs and intended venture growth. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(5), 610-632. Hayward, M. L., Shepherd, D. A., & Griffin, D. (2006). A Hubris Theory of Entrepreneurship. Management Science, 52 (2), 160-172. Hessels, J., Gelderen, M. V., & Thurik, R. (2008). Entrepreneurial aspirations, motivations, and their drivers. Small Business Economics, 31 (3), 323-339. Hopp, C., & Stephan, U. (2012). The influence of socio-cultural environments on the performance of nascent entrepreneurs: Community culture, motivation, self-efficacy and start-up success. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 24 (9-10), 917-945. Lukeš, M. & Zouhar, J. (2013). No Experience? No Problem – It’s All about Yourself: Factors Influencing Nascent Entrepreneurship Outcomes. Ekonomický časopis, 61 (9), 934-950. Lukeš, M.& Jakl, M. (2012). Podnikání v České republice: Podnikatelské postoje, aktivita a aspirace, podmínky pro podnikání. Praha: Global Entrepreneurship Research Association. Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G.T. & Frese, M. (2009). Entrepreneurial Orientation and Business Performance: An Assessment of Past Research and Suggestions for the Future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 761-787. Santarelli, E., & Vivarelli, M. (2007). Entrepreneurship and the process of firms' entry, survival and growth. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16 (3), 455-488. Stevenson, H. & Jarillo, C. (1990). A Paradigm of Entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial Management. Strategic Management Journal, 11 (7), 17–27. Šúbertová, E. & Kinčáková, M. (2014). Podpora podnikania pre malé a stredné podniky. Bratislava: Vydavatelstvo Ekonóm. Viturka, M. (2010). Kvalita podnikatelského prostředí, regionální konkurenceschopnost a strategie regionálního rozvoje České republiky. Praha: Grada. Wang, C., Walker, E. A., & Redmond, J. L. (2007). Explaining the lack of strategic planning in SMEs: The importance of owner motivation. International Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 12(1), 1-16. Watson, K., Hogarth-Scott, S., & Wilson, N. (1998). Small business start-ups: Success factors and support implications. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 4 (3), 217-238.
Jarmila Šebestová SU OPF Karviná Univerzitní náměstí 1934/3, 733 40 Karviná sebestova@opf.slu.cz
SU OPF Karviná Univerzitní náměstí 1934/3, 733 40 Karviná zuzana.palova@centrum.cz Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2015 2015 -> Police Militarization 2015 -> 2015 ihbb championships: hs history Bowl Round 4 – Prelims First Quarter 2015 -> Wrtp/big step · 3841 W. Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, wi 53208 2015 -> Rao bulletin 1 December 2015 html edition this bulletin contains the following articles 2015 -> Darton College 2015 -> Training Workshop on Planning and Implementation of Multi-Sectoral Development Programme (MsDP) in Bihar Date : 6th 2015 -> Rao bulletin 15 June 2015 html edition this bulletin contains the following articles 2015 -> Rao bulletin 1 September 2015 html edition this bulletin contains the following articles 2015 -> Rao bulletin 1 August 2015 html edition this bulletin contains the following articles 2015 -> Science, and transportation united states senate Download 2.73 Mb. Share with your friends:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||