Features of successful entrepreneurs in Estonia and organisational
learning challenges
Tiit Elenurm
Estonian Business School
Lauteri 3, 10114 Tallinn, Estonia
Tel. +3726651348, Fax +3726313959
tiit.elenurm@ebs.ee
Ruth Alas
Estonian Business School
Lauteri 3, 10114 Tallinn, Estonia
Tel. +3726651346, Fax +3726313959
ruth.alas@ebs.ee
Estonian Business School
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to reveal implications of changing success factors of
entrepreneurs on the role of organisational development programmes in facilitating organisational
learning.
Design/methodology/approach – This explorative research is conducted as part of the E -World
research programme focusing on international perspectives of entrepreneurship. Participants of
Estonian focus groups at first filled individual work sheets by answering questions about traits of
successful entrepreneurs in Estonia. Second, participants compared successful entrepreneurs in
Estonia in 90s and in 2007 in focus groups of 4-5 members and presented their common position,
but also differences revealed in group discussions.
Findings - courage to risk, openness to new information, flexibility, creativity and determination
were the features of successful entrepreneurs in Estonia most often pointed out be all categories
of respondents. Focus groups stressed some success factors of an entrepreneur operating in
Estonia that in the year 2007 were more important than in 90-ies of the 20th century: broad world
view, wide social network, innovativeness and creativity, lobbying in EU-related structures.
Research limitations/implications – The research applies focus groups that highlight
perceptions of changing success factors of entrepreneurs but does not involve a representative
sample of Estonian entrepreneurs. Research results can be used as an input for entrepreneurship
training and organisational development programmes.
Originality/value The results of the research explain why organisation development tools in the
present environment of organisational changes in a new EU member state have to stress creativity
and support inter-organisational networking, whereas in the 90s “selling” the vision of an
entrepreneur that was driven by best practices from advanced market economies was often the
main focus of organisational development programmes.
Keywords entrepreneur, success factors, organisational change, organisational development,
learning
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The research programme “Entrepreneurship Work in Organizations Requiring Leadership
Development (E-WORLD)” will explore the following research questions: Are different
entrepreneurial characteristics needed for success in different cultures and international
ventures? Which characteristics are universal, meaning they are needed across most or
all cultures? Which features are most culture-specific? How can critical entrepreneurial
competencies be trained or developed in a particular culture?
In this paper we analyse results of the first stage of the research project from the
point of view of organisational development and organisational learning challenges that
depend on features of entrepreneurs at different stages of the economic transition towards
an advanced market economy. Entrepreneurs play an important role in building and
nurturing organisational learning and initiating organisational change (Drucker, 1985;
Carcía-Morales et al., 2006). Organisational development programmes that focus on real
organisational changes have to take into consideration these features of entrepreneurs that
influence their readiness to change and their capability to support organisational learning.
There has been a long debate between followers of the trait approach – looking
for universal personality characteristics that predict entrepreneurial success – and
supporters of contingency thinking that link the characteristics of a successful
entrepreneur with the business environment and prevailing context of the enterprise
(Aldrich 2000; Littunen 2000). It is, however, important to study how features of
successful entrepreneurs are perceived by present and potential entrepreneurs in order to
understand how the image of entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship is transformed in the
changing social context. Such research will also help to reflect the role models of
entrepreneurs and the related expectations of potential entrepreneurs and employees that
interact with entrepreneurs in the organisational development process. Social
expectations towards entrepreneurs are among other important drivers of entrepreneurial
behaviour. Culture and norms affect the way individuals perceive the social role of
entrepreneurs and the formation of new ventures (Licht and Siegel 2006).
The paper addresses two main research questions. What features of entrepreneurs
are perceived as success drivers in a small open economy, where the opportunities for
entrepreneurship emerged 20 years ago and have gone through radical changes as part of
the transition to a market economy and integration with the EU? How may changing
perceptions of entrepreneurial success factors influence organisational learning and
organisational development needs? In order to answer these questions, the paper at first
provides an overview of some key concepts of entrepreneurship and organisational
development that are later used to interpret the focus group results. The next section of
the paper reviews earlier research into entrepreneurs in the transition economy in Estonia.
The results of the focus group are discussed within the framework of changing
entrepreneurial success patterns in Estonia and the changing focus of organisational
development and organisational learning.
Entrepreneurship and Organisational Development
An entrepreneur acts as an innovator, initiating changes and generating new opportunities
that in the long run cause economic growth. The standard theory of the firm analyses
repetitious decisions in an enterprise that already exists and is fully grown (Baumol
2005). Such a context does not fully reveal the role human resources play in creating new
business opportunities. Peter Drucker (1985) has described entrepreneurs as individuals
who exploit opportunities that changes create. New organizations create new jobs and
broaden social mobility (Carroll and Hannan 2000).
The entrepreneur has been defined as someone who specialises in making
judgemental decisions about the allocation of scarce resources (Casson 1982).
Judgmental decisions may be more or less risky and can be innovative by nature.
Schumpeter (1928) linked the role of the entrepreneur to creative destruction by
transforming existing production systems.
Kirzner (1978) in his theory of entrepreneurship concluded that the entrepreneur
is a driving force in the market due to his or her role in discovering unused opportunities
in the marketplace, and the competitive behaviour of entrepreneurs is operational in
restoring the equilibrium of the market. The innovative entrepreneur described by
Schumpeter is more related to introducing creative business ideas that may change the
nature of markets, whereas the entrepreneur described by Kirzner is more an opportunity
seeker able to perceive market gaps and mistakes made by other entrepreneurs in the
situation of incomplete information supply. Shane (2003) links Kirznerian entrepreneurial
opportunities to equilibrating forces, to limited discovery of common and less innovative
solutions that do not require radically new information, whereas Schumpeterian
opportunities are disequilibrating, rare, innovative, involve creation and require new
information. Scarce resources are not limited to finances, but often include human
resources and knowledge. Entrepreneurs have also been characterised as individuals that
believe something that nobody else believes (Witt 1998). Such differential beliefs open
the way to use new business opportunities and new allocations of resources. Unique
beliefs at the same time create the challenge of aligning the vision of the entrepreneur and
his/her team with the help of the organisational development process.
A widely accepted definition of organisational development (Cummings and
Worley, 1997) sees organisational development (OD) as a system-wide application of
behavioural science knowledge for the planned development and reinforcement of
organisational strategies, structure and processes for improving an organisation’s
effectiveness. In general, definitions of OD tend to focus on incremental adjustments
(Cacioppe and Edwards, 2005). Effective change is seen to proceed in small, incremental
steps (Dunphy and Stace, 1988). The application of behavioural science and process
consulting in OD programmes is focused on creating a unifying future vision and on
building organisational consensus about strategic development priorities. OD efforts
stress organisational efficiency and readiness to change, but also diminishing status
differentials, sharing of responsibility, expression of feelings and needs, collaboration,
constructive conflict feedback, flexible leadership, involvement and trust (Carnall, 2003).
The nature of entrepreneurial opportunities and the business environment for creative
destruction may in some cases support participative OD approaches, but there may be
situations, where entrepreneurs prefer more individualistic business development
practices.
The entrepreneurial personality is characterised by a self-motivation that makes
overcoming risks possible and is driven by new business opportunities. Shaver and Scott
(1991) have pointed out the achievement motivation as the only personality trait that in
many studies has demonstrated convincing association with new venture creation. Rauch
and Frese (2000) in their overview of psychological approaches to entrepreneurial
success conclude that the most frequently studied personality characteristics during
previous decades were the need for achievement, risk-taking and internal locus of control.
Their meta-research of entrepreneurship studies stresses the need to take into
consideration moderators of entrepreneurial success factors such as the life cycle of the
venture, culture, and the hostility and dynamism of the business environment.
Cognitive heuristics have been studied in order to understand, for instance, the
start-up decisions of entrepreneurs based on over-confidence and over-optimism biases
(Wadeson 2006). An entrepreneur’s propensity to take risks has not distinguished them
from non-entrepreneurs in all research results, and several studies have established a
negative association between risk-taking and business success (Rauch and Frese 2000).
The more differentiating factor has appeared to be risk underassessment in line with the
general over-optimism of entrepreneurs (Sarasvathy et al., 1998). Visionary leadership,
communication, delegating and performance facilitation have been identified as
leadership factors positively related to the success of entrepreneurial companies (Eggers
et al., 1996). Transformational change requires a dramatic shift in organisational vision
and strategy (Sun and Alas, 2007). Transformational leaders encourage individual and
group learning by motivating followers to question assumptions and to come up with
creative observations (Bass, 1998), but Dysia and Crossan (2004) point out that both
transformational and transactional leadership are needed for organisational learning. In
the context of launching a new entrepreneurial venture an entrepreneurial vision may
mean a business idea that is developed individually by an entrepreneur, transferred from
best practices in more advanced markets or created via teamwork.
Entrepreneurship researchers have developed the entrepreneurship orientation
constructs that integrate innovation, proactiveness and risk-taking (Morris and Paul,
1987) or the five dimensions: innovation, proactiveness, risk-taking, autonomy and
competitive aggressiveness (Lumkin and Dess 1996). The construct of a single
entrepreneurial orientation can be further developed by differentiating several
entrepreneurial orientations: imitative entrepreneurship, individual innovative
entrepreneurship and co-creative entrepreneurship (Elenurm et al., 2007). Co-creative
entrepreneurship is based on social networks and clusters as information dissemination
mechanisms that facilitate entrepreneurship (Gompers et al., 2005). Business networks
mean continuous exchange and the other co-operative relationships that a business
organisation is engaged in with other organisations (Hǻkansson and Snehota 1995). The
role of networking is especially important in building competencies for
internationalization of entrepreneurs (Hinttu et al., 2004).
Entrepreneurs representing different entrepreneurial orientations and pursuing
imitative or innovative business ideas face different organisational development needs
and organisational learning challenges.
Entrepreneurship in a changing economy
A comprehensive overview of entrepreneurship and SME research in Estonia is
presented by Venesaar (2006). Several research projects have focused on changes in the
economic environment and on the main problems facing entrepreneurs at different stages
of economic transition, privatization and restructuring. At the beginning of the transition
towards a market economy in the 1990s, an interview-based study conducted mainly
among members of the Estonian Association of Small Enterprises (EVEA) revealed that
the changes in the society and emerging legislative framework were the main reason for
entrepreneurial initiatives among more active people (Klaamann, 1992).
In the context of identifying knowledge gaps among entrepreneurs facing the
challenges of internationalization during the early stages of the transition process,
research by Smallbone (1998) identified demand in SMEs for increasing access to
information about international market opportunities, advice about international
distribution and export promotion and also about export development grants and training
courses.
Elenurm (2000, 2001) analyzed the export training needs of Estonian SMEs and
came to the conclusion that many entrepreneurs that started subcontracting for foreign
clients did not pursue an active internationalization strategy, but were found by foreign
entrepreneurial business people who visited Estonia. Small entrepreneurs in wood,
furniture and clothing industries saw finding additional foreign partners and legal issues
in foreign trade as a top priority, but knowledge in fields such as export strategy, export
development planning and market research were seen as low priority due to the limited
organisational and financial capabilities of such companies.
Finding markets was mentioned as the main business constraint by 42% of the
respondents in a large-scale survey of 1912 SMEs conducted in 2002 in the context of
preparations for joining the European Union (Smallbone and Venesaar 2006, pp. 19–46).
Alas and Sharifi (2002) pointed out the importance of changes in enterprise mission and
strategy in the transformation process of privatised Estonian enterprises. The research
project on entrepreneurial strategies and trust (Venesaar 2005) indicated that during the
early stages of transition towards the market economy, personal trust was a key to
successful business relationships. The role of institutional trust has increased during later
stages of transition. It has been suggested that the regulatory and competitive
environment of the EU will reduce the role of arbitrary entrepreneurship and will support
knowledge-based entrepreneurship (Roolaht 2006).
Andrejevskaja (2006) concluded in her overview of empirical studies on
entrepreneurship that the psychology and sociology of entrepreneurship has received less
attention from Estonian researchers than the environment of entrepreneurship,
entrepreneurship support measures or economic development via entrepreneurship.
Earlier research has, however, revealed the role of active opportunity-seeking people in
entrepreneurial initiatives in the early stages of the market economy. The importance of
personal trust among business partners and the active search for new information has also
been related to successful entrepreneurship in earlier studies of Estonian entrepreneurs.
The concept of the learning organisation (Senge, 1990) has been popularized in
Estonia in the last 10 years. Mets and Torokoff (2007) have evaluated the state of the
learning organisation in some Estonian production companies and revealed differences
between perceptions by managers and workers. We assume that in a rapidly changing
economy, entrepreneurs are important stakeholders both in implementing the vision of
the learning organisation and initiating OD programmes. It is essential to understand the
perceptions of their success patterns in order to anticipate new organisational learning
needs and challenges that OD practitioners may face when following their change agent
ambitions.
Results of Focus Group Discussions
At this stage of the E-world research project, the aim of the focus groups was to develop
new insights into the characteristics and behavioural patterns that are associated with
successful entrepreneurs in order to provide input for the further more quantitative stages
of cross-cultural research. Each focus group focuses clearly upon a particular topic and
encompasses the interactive discussion among its participants (Carson et al., 2001).
We used the following procedure for conducting focus group discussions. First,
participants spent 20 minutes filling in individual work sheets by compiling a list of at
least 5 personality features that characterize successful entrepreneurs in Estonia.
Participants were also asked to describe the behaviour and other success factors of
entrepreneurs currently operating in Estonia. Second, participants were asked to compare
successful entrepreneurs in Estonia in the 90s with those in 2007 in 4-5 member focus
groups, and after 30 minutes to present their common position, but also the differences
revealed by their group discussion. The facilitator and members of other focus groups
would then ask questions if some conclusions needed additional clarification. The
Estonian sample consisted of 12 doctoral students from the Estonian Business School
(EBS), 32 EBS bachelor students majoring in entrepreneurship and 16 master students
from the Estonian Academy of Music and Theatre majoring in arts administration.
Separate focus group sessions were conducted with these categories of participants.
In the individual work sheets, to summarise all categories of respondents, the
following characteristics of successful entrepreneurs in Estonia in 2007 were most often
pointed out:
1. courage to take risks
2. openness to new information
3. flexibility
4. creativity
5. determination
However, bachelor students majoring in entrepreneurship, 54% of whom already
had some practical entrepreneurial experience, stressed self-confidence and
communicative skills more often than the others. Potentially conflicting personality
characteristics such as egoism and empathy were pointed out by entrepreneurship
students, whereas the students of arts administration mentioned trust and greediness.
Such behavioural patterns as active involvement in networking and acquiring founding
capital, but also selecting the right team and following agreements were especially
described as ways to success by participants that had entrepreneurial experience. Other
students most often highlighted innovative behaviour and the search for new knowledge.
Table 1 summarizes the results of the focus group discussions. In the focus group
discussions additional behavioural patterns of successful entrepreneurs were identified.
During focus group discussions, without any special guidance, the participants moved
from general personality traits to more specific descriptions of success factors that tend to
reflect the behavioural patterns. These behaviours are linked to features of the business
environment; although, the majority of them are also enabled by personality
characteristics.
Table 1. Summary of Focus Group Results: Main Differences of Entrepreneurial Success
Factors at Different Stages of Market Economy Development
Success factors of an entrepreneur operating in
Estonia that were more important in the 90s than in
2007
Success factors of an entrepreneur operating in Estonia that
are more important in 2007 than in the 90s
1.
Courage to take risks – act fast, think later.
Short-term thinking.
1.
Vision and long-term view that links innovation and
business sustainability.
2.
Individualism and making almost all the
decisions by himself
2.
Team approach and sharing of responsibilities
3.
Access to privatization deals and friends in the
public sector and early foreign investors,
finding “holes” in relatively simple business
legislation. Good relations with influential
people of the same age cohort
3.
Lobbying, knowing lawyers and already extensive
business legislation, anticipating new trends in Estonian
and EU regulations.
4.
Understanding the basics of market economy,
basic foreign language skills
4.
Broader international network, skills to use internet as a
networking tool for global business
5.
Questionable ethics, authentic personalities
5.
Honesty and trust is stressed more, learning from the
others’ mistakes
6.
Firm hand, coping with stress
6.
Analytical and communication skills, ability to process
large amounts of information
7.
Limited capital base, loans from friends
7.
Capability to link all types of resources in order to go
international
8.
Finding empty market niches
8.
Professional skills and specialization for competitive
advantage
9.
Workaholic style, long working hours
9.
Balance between work and family
10. Capability to redirect processes and to
restructure the “ruins of the command
economy”
10. Bohemian creativity, open to innovative opportunities on
a global scale
For instance, in the 90s, the courage to take risks is linked to short-term thinking
that was sometimes inevitable as “windows of business opportunities” opened and closed
rapidly in the changing legal environment and macroeconomic situation. Such
interpretations are in line with the risk underassessment and over-optimism features of
entrepreneurs that were identified by Sarasvathy et al. (1998) when they compared
bankers and entrepreneurs in a more advanced market economy. In Estonia, however, at
the beginning of the 90s, founding commercial banks was also an important field of
entrepreneurship. Vision and long-term view are seen as the success factors in present
entrepreneurs assuming a link between innovation and business sustainability.
Friends in the public sector and among early foreign investors were already a
success factor for entrepreneurs in the 90s, but in later stages the focus has moved
towards more systematic lobbying in local state and municipal agencies, but also in
international institutions without getting lost in the already extensive Estonian business
legislation and EU regulations. Basic foreign language skills served as a tool for finding
initial foreign partners in the 90s, but networking among present successful entrepreneurs
is seen as using the internet to facilitate global business connections in a much broader
international network. A firm hand and coping with stress as key features of a successful
entrepreneur in the 90s have become less important compared with analytical and
communication skills that enable processing of large amounts of business information.
Changing focus of organisational development and organisational learning?
Changes in management in the early stages of transition were mostly associated with the
ability to redirect production processes and to restructure the “ruins of the command
economy” by transferring solutions from advanced market economies, whereas
Schumpeterian creative innovation has become a more important success factor in 2007.
The image of the successful entrepreneur of the 90s can be more easily associated with
Kirzner’s discovery of unused opportunities although at that time the marketplace was
not especially demanding and business opportunities were often enabled by access to
resources and by finding “loopholes” in laws and regulations. Entrepreneurs that at
present manage to pursue innovative opportunities on a global scale are assumed to have
a long-term vision, a broad international network and a team approach. Mobilizing
development ideas of other team members assumes more advanced dialogue in the OD
process.
Within the framework of the entrepreneurial orientation concept (Lumkin and
Dess 1996), the perceptions of focus group members about entrepreneurial success
factors in the 90s stress risk-taking, proactiveness and autonomy. Innovation appears
more as a rapid adjustment to external socio-economic changes and not hesitating to use
“windows of business opportunities” in the local business environment even if these were
temporary. In 2007, the focus has shifted to innovation that is based more on the
systematic use of business opportunities in foreign markets and on the creative
development of new ideas that have a chance of succeeding globally. The OD agenda of
rapidly internationalising entrepreneurs should involve ways to share knowledge with
foreign business partners and joint messages for lobbying in the EU structures.
The rapid moves for exploiting temporary business opportunities in order to earn
short-term profit in the 90s did not leave much time for systematic analysis of business
opportunities and using multi-stage OD processes as a tool for long-term strategic
planning. If some elements of OD were used in practice, the main focus was to “sell” the
change vision of the entrepreneur to enhance the team spirit of his subordinates. OD
methods that draw more on intra-organisational dialogue (Coopey and Burgoyne, 2000)
and apply creative thinking techniques are more relevant for the entrepreneur that follows
innovative co-creative orientation. In a knowledge-based organisation even the talented
entrepreneur cannot assume that he/she alone is the only source of creative business
development ideas. The entrepreneur in such an organisation has to accept that among his
subordinates there may be more competent experts than the owner-manager and OD tools
can produce synergy between their ideas.
Organisational culture and memory are two central and interrelated aspects of
collective learning (Berthon et al 2001). Organisational learning in a growing
organisation has to support knowledge sharing between the core team and new
employees. OD programmes have to link organisational learning and knowledge
management. The capacity to deploy both tacit and explicit knowledge (Nonaka, 1995)
and to re-use organisational memory is crucial in an innovative venture, where
technology-driven ideas have to be matched with customer information from
international markets. That assumes combining face-to-face strategy discussions with
virtual discussion forums in OD processes, where earlier discourse can easily be retrieved
and creative ideas that were not applicable when proposed, can be found and
implemented when their time has arrived.
Zhang et al. (2006) have demonstrated by using data about owner-managers in
England that learning processes in innovative firms were outward facing and regularly
contacted with external knowledge providers compared to inward facing stable firms.
Although the EU Community innovation survey indicated that 48.1% of Estonian
enterprises were involved in innovative activity in 2006 (Eesti Statistika, 2008), and
networking between enterprises has become more intensive, the low level of co-operation
between enterprises and universities is still a bottleneck. OD programmes that are not
limited to a single organisation, but link R&D organisations with industrial enterprises
and/or bring together other types of organisations in a value chain may broaden the scope
of OD activities and transform intra-organisational learning into inter-organisational
learning.
Conclusions
Some comparisons between entrepreneurial success factors in the 90s and in 2007 that
have been presented by the focus groups may in reality be wishful thinking: the
individualism, questionable ethics and workaholic style of the past in contrast with
honesty and trust, balancing work and family of the present. But even if such
comparisons are not always valid in real business life, they reflect social trends and the
desires of the experienced and potential entrepreneurs that participated in the focus
groups.
The image of the successful entrepreneur as a promoter of the long term-vision, a
team player, a cross-border network developer, a person that integrates professional skills
with creativity and manages to balance work and family is a socially desirable role
model. In order to meet such expectations entrepreneurs can make more extensive use of
OD tools that enhance the creativity of their management team, but also the participation
of other employees in discussing long-term priorities.
The results of the focus groups reflect a trend towards innovative and co-creative
entrepreneurship. In order to avoid disappointment in real business situations,
prerequisites, and pluses and minuses of different entrepreneurial orientations have to be
discussed in the training process by using self-assessment questionnaires to identify
preferences towards different entrepreneurial orientations (Elenurm and Moisala 2007).
A universal challenge for entrepreneurs is to make and implement business
decisions to combine and apply scarce resources, but the nature of these resources and the
patterns of their mobilization are changing. Co-creation in a global value chain or cooperation between industry and R&D organisations assumes knowledge sharing readiness
and inter-organisational learning communities. Inter-organisational OD programmes are
essential for developing a knowledge-based network economy.
Transformational changes in the 90s were imposed on entrepreneurs by the
institutional framework of Estonia's transition to the market economy. In fact, the role of
entrepreneurs as such did not exist in the institutional framework of the command
economy. Although Estonia is now a market economy, transition continues in the sense
of searching for sustainable competitive advantages as a new EU member. Gaining
competitiveness through higher added value instead of cheap labour assumes new
transformational changes initiated by innovative entrepreneurs. Simple imitation of the
best business practices from entrepreneurs operating in advanced market economies is
not the main change driver of this new development stage. Broader synergy between
innovative ideas inside the organisation and learning in inter-organisational networks is a
challenge for transformational entrepreneurs and for change agents in OD programmes.
References
Alas, R., & Sharifi, S. (2002), “Organizational Learning and Resistance to Change in
Estonian Companies”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 5 No. 3,
pp. 313-331.
Aldrich, H. (2000), Organizations Evolving, Sage, Beverly Hills.
Andrejevskaja, J. (2006), “Entrepreneurship and Its Environment in Estonia: an
Overview of Recent Empirical Studies”, in: Mets, T, Andrejevskaja, J., Venesaar,
U., Kolbre, E. (Eds), Entrepreneurship in Estonia: Policies, Practices, Education
and Research, Tartu University Press, Tartu, pp. 297-404.
Bass, B. M. (1998) Transformational leadership: Industry, military, and educational
impact, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New York.
Baumol, W.
(2005), “Microtheory of Entrepreneurship: More Exists than is
Recognized”, in: Vinig, G. T. Voort, R V. D. (Eds), The Emergence of
Entrepreneurial Economics, Elsevier, Amsderdam, pp. 27-36.
Berthon, P., Pitt, L. F., Ewing, M. T. (2001) “Corollaries of the collective: The influence
of organizational culture and memory deployment on perceived decision-making
context”, Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 29 (2), pp. 135-150
Cacioppe, R., Edwards, M. (2005), “Seeking the Holy Grail of organisational
development”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 26, No. 2,
pp. 85-105.
Carroll, G.R., Hannan M.T. (2000), The Demography of Corporations and Industries,
Princeton University Press, New York.
Carson, D., Gilmore, A., Perry C., Grønhaug, K. (2001), Qualitative Marketing Research,
Sage, London.
Casson, M. (1982), The Entrepreneur: An Economic Theory, Barnes and Noble, New
York.
Cummings, T.G., Worley, C.G. (1997) Organizational Development and Change, West
Publishing, St. Paul.
Drucker, P. F. (1985), Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and Principle,
HarperBusiness, New York.
Dusya, V., Crossan, M. (2004), “Strategic leadership and organizational learning”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 222-240.
Dunphy, D., Stace, D. (1988), “Transformational and coercive strategies for planned
organizational change: beyond the OD model”, Organizational Studies, Vol. 9 No.
3, pp. 317-334.
Eesti Statistika, Tööstusettevõtete uuenduslikkus on järjekindlalt kasvanud. Pressiteade.
http://www.stat.ee/?id=29353&highlight=Innovatsiooniuuring, accessed 05.07.08
Elenurm, T. (2000), “Export-related Training Needs of Estonian Companies in the
Process of Internationalisation”, in: Proceedings of the University of Vaasa.
Reports, Vol. 57, pp. 122-142.
Elenurm, T. 2001. “Development Needs of Estonian Entrepreneurs and Managers for
International Business”, in: 4th McGill Conference on International
Entrepreneurship, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Vol.1, pp. 384-407.
Elenurm, T., Ennulo, J., Laar, J. (2007), “Structures of Motivation and Entrepreneurial
Orientation in Students as the Basis for Differentiated Approaches in Developing
Human Resources for Future Business Initiatives”, EBS Review, Vol. 23 No. 2,
pp. 50-61.
Elenurm, T. Moisala, A. (2007), “Comparative Analysis of Entrepreneurial Orientations
among Estonian and Finnish Business Students”, in: The International Council of
Small Business (ICSB) 52 World Conference Proceedings, Turku, Finland, CD.
García-Morales, V. J. Llorens-Montes, F. J., Verdú-Jover, A. J. (2006), “Antecedents and
consequences of organizational innovation and organizational learning in
entrepreneurship”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 106 No 1, pp.
21-42.
Gompers, P., Lerner, J., Scharfstein D. (2005), “Entrepreneurial Spawing: Public
Corporations and the Formation of New Ventures. 1986-1999”, Journal of
Finance, Vol. 60, pp. 577-614.
Hǻkansson, H., Snehota, I. (1995), Developing Relationships in Business Networks,
Routledge, London.
Hinttu, S., Forsman, M., Kock, S. (2004), “A Network Perspective of International
Entrepreneurship”, in: Dana, L-P. (Ed.) Handbook of Research on International
Entrepreneurship, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 715-731.
Kirzner, I. (1978), Competition and Entrepreneurship, University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
Klaamann, V. (1992), “Entrepreneurship: Motivation and Environment”, in: 7th Nordic
Conference on Small Business, Turku School of Economics and Business
Administration.
Licht, A., Siegel, J. (2006), “The Social Dimensions of Entrepreneurship”, in: Casson,
M., Yeung, B, Basu, A. Wadeson, N. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of
Entrepreneurship, pp. 511-539.
Littunen, H. (2000), “Entrepreneurship and the Characteristics of the Entrepreneurial
Personality”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour &Research,
Vol. 6, pp. 295-304.
Lumkin, G.T., Dess G.G. (1996), “Clarifying the Entrepreneurial Orientation Construct
and Linking It to Performance”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 1,
pp. 135-172.
Morris, M.H., Paul, G.W. (1987), “The Relationship between Entrepreneurship and
Marketing in Established Firms”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 2 No3, pp.
247-259.
Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge Creating Company, Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
Rauch, A., Frese, M. (2000), “Psychological Approaches to Entrepreneurial Success: a
General Model and Overview of Findings”, in: Cooper, C.L., Robertson, I.T.
(Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Wiley,
Chichester, pp. 101-142.
Roolaht, T. (2006), “Entrepreneurial Approach to Explaining the Internationalization of
Estonian Small and Medium Enterprises”, in: Mets, T, Andrejevskaja, J.,
Venesaar, U., Kolbre, E. (Eds), Entrepreneurship in Estonia: Policies, Practices,
Education and Research, Tartu University Press, Tartu, pp. 92-115.
Sarasvathy , D. , Simon, H., Lave, L. (1998), “Perceiving and Managing Business Risks:
Difference between Entrepreneurs and Bankers”, Journal of Economic Behaviour
and Organization, Vol. 33, pp. 207-226.
Schumpeter, J. 1928. “The Instability of Capitalism”, Economic Journal, Vol. 38, pp.
361-386.
Senge, P. (1990), The Fifth Discipline. The Art and Practice of the Learning
Organization, Random House, Sydney.
Shane, S. (2003), A General Theory of Entrepreneurship. The Individual-Opportunity
Nexus, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Shaver, K., Scott, L. (1991), “Person, Process, Choice: the Psychology of New Venture
Creation”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 16, pp. 23-45.
Smallbone, D. (1998), Internationalization, Inter-firm Linkages and SME Development in
Central and Eastern Europe. Final report, CEEDR. Middlesex University,
London.
Smallbone, D., Venesaar, U. (2006), “Estonian SMEs in the Context of an Enlarged
Europe”, in: Mets, T, Andrejevskaja, J., Venesaar, U., Kolbre, E. (Eds),
Entrepreneurship in Estonia: Policies, Practices, Education and Research, Tartu
University Press, Tartu, pp. 19-46.
Sun, W., Alas, R. (2007), “Changes in Chinese Organizations from the Institutional
Perpective”, EBS Review, No 23 (2), pp. 37-48.
Torokoff, M., Mets, T. (2007), “Patterns of learning organisation in Estonian companies”,
Trames, Vol. 11 No, 61/56, pp. 139-154.
Venesaar, U. (2005), “Emergence of and Changes in Trust in SMEs in Estonia”, in:
Höfmann, H-H., Welter, F. (Eds.) Trust and Entrepreneurship. A West-East
Perspective. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 176-196.
Venesaar, U. (2006), “Entrepreneurship and Small Business Research in Estonia: an
Overview”, in: Mets, T, Andrejevskaja, J., Venesaar, U., Kolbre, E. (Eds),
Entrepreneurship in Estonia: Policies, Practices, Education and Research, Tartu
University Press, Tartu, pp. 270-294.
Wadeson, N. (2006), “Cognitive Aspects of Entrepreneurship”, in: Casson, M., Yeung, B,
Basu, A. Wadeson, N. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Entrepreneurship, pp. 91113.
Witt, U. (1998), “Imagination and Leadership – The Neglected Dimension of an
Evolutionary Theory of Firm”, Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization,
Vol. 35, pp. 161-177.
Zhang, M., Macpherson, A., Jones, O. (2006), “Conceptualizing the Learning Process in
SMEs”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 299-323.