CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
1.1 Problem Background
There is little doubt that there has been an increasing public interest in entrepreneurship
stories fostered by rapidly increasing media coverage. Thanks to this proliferation of
storytelling, including textual and visualisation technologies (such as the Internet)
individuals can now browse the net and download images of celebrity entrepreneurs of
interest to them in a way that they could not have done in the past (Boje and Smith,
2010). These entrepreneurial stories help to shape the perceptions and career
expectations of people in the EU. But, still the question of ‘how people start their
entrepreneurial journey at different points in their careers’ has existed for some time and
is still not fully resolved within the EU region. At the beginning of the 21st century, Rae
and Carswell ascertained that the entrepreneur's own story is rarely heard (Rae and
Carswell, 2001). As O’Connor notes, “knowledge of opportunities may be embedded in
the entrepreneurial story, such that a closer engagement with meaning-making
processes might reveal new insights into the processes of perceiving and validating
opportunity and risk." (O’Connor, 2007 cited in Larty and Hamilton, 2011). According
to Steyaert, 'Every entrepreneurial attempt is written on a daily basis, with many actors
on multiple scenes simultaneously searching to move existing realities through creative
actions into new worlds'. An anonymous entrepreneur, asked by a researcher to describe
"Who wants to be an entrepreneur? replied, “Anyone who wants to experience the deep,
dark canyons of uncertainty and ambiguity and wants to walk the breathtaking
highlands of success. But I caution: Do not plan to walk the latter until you have
experienced the former.” (Timmons, 1985). As wisely described by this anonymous
entrepreneur, entrepreneurship is a creative process enacted through every day
practices: It is never finished, and is always ongoing, a journey filled more with
surprises than with predictable patterns. Also entrepreneurship might seem a lonely
process from the outside but in fact it is not one person's journey through the struggles
of the business world. In this study, basically we will try to make some entrepreneurial
1
journeys heard that will also contribute to the entrepreneurship literature in a positive
manner.
1.2 Aims and Research Questions of the Study
No matter what path an entrepreneur take on his/her journey, many challenges face
them. All roads lead to an arduous business environment so having a flexible mindset is
a necessity on the road and entrepreneurs must be prepared accordingly. However there
are many entrepreneurs out there who have succeeded in the process. In a nutshell,
when it comes to the phenomenon of entrepreneurial success, it is safe to say that there
is no simple path to success.
Entrepreneurship is highly innovative and innovation is of paramount importance to
achieving in the world of business to be able to create competitive advantage.
Innovation is, however, a highly complicated and uncertain journey in which
entrepreneurs embark upon a range of activities over an extended period in order to
make an original idea into a materialised business (Van De Ven et al., 1999). Also,
inevitably, failure is a natural and inseparable part of the entrepreneurial journey. Even
if the new venture the entrepreneur has the right characteristics to be successful, their
dream might still fail along the journey. Failure, however, is not always the end of the
entrepreneurial journey. New ventures face a number of diverse problems along the
journey, entrepreneurs try to solve these problems throughout the new venture creation
process, that is why it is called an ‘entrepreneurial journey’ not a 'predictable sprint'
(Cha and Bae, 2008). New venture creators usually have an extremely difficult time
trying to get their ventures off the ground since, new ventures usually lack tangible
assets. It is also hard to gain credibility for new ventures with little or no track record.
This research project does not attempt to test pre-established hypotheses; instead, the
aim here is to explore the nature and composition of the entrepreneurial journey. The
aim of this research is to discover several local entrepreneurial journey stories in the EU
region through semi-structured interviews. The questions this thesis addresses are
related to the entrepreneurial journey experience, therefore the research questions will
2
be as follows; what is the entrepreneurial journey within the context of the EU
entrepreneurial ecosystem/environment? What kind of challenges do European
entrepreneurs face along the way and how do they overcome these challenges? What
makes EU entrepreneurs’ journeys unique?
1.3 Significance of the Study
We can argue that a large portion of entrepreneurial research to date has highlighted
various aspects of entrepreneurial ventures in the EU rather than the whole
entrepreneurial journey. In other words, scholars generally delve into different stages of
entrepreneurial journey but to be able to visualise the whole journey we need to see the
whole story of the entrepreneurial process. After reviewing the related literature, there
seems to be a gap for further research on the whole process of entrepreneurial journey
within the EU. While much is known about the static aspects of entrepreneurship, much
less is known about the dynamic aspects as a consequence of this research focus in
entrepreneurship. That is to say, the question of 'how and why entrepreneurs create their
own journeys across the EU is still not very clearly answered. According to Lounsbury
and Glyn, "attention to the dynamics of culture and symbolic activities like storytelling
has been limited in the entrepreneurship and strategy literatures" (Lounsbury and Glynn,
2001). This paper will attempt to provide a deeper discussion of the entrepreneurial
journey within the EU than that provided in the literature of entrepreneurship. We hope
that this effort will clarify the European entrepreneurial journey with the help of local
entrepreneurial stories. We will try to facilitate the revealing of entrepreneurial stories.
We will try to unearth the patterns embedded in our interview dataset. As Sommer and
Sommer note, "An interview gives people the opportunity to tell their stories in their
own words. It can provide a release for pent-up feelings and can be empowering as it
recognises people as experts on their own experiences." (Sommer and Sommer, 1997).
Accordingly, we will ground this research on the assumption that any effort at
understanding the phenomenon of the entrepreneurial journey, in particular, how
opportunities emerge and how EU entrepreneurs grasp them, will yield rich findings in
3
our quest for strengthening the domain of entrepreneurship research (Dutta and Crossan,
2005).
1.4 Research Methodology
In order to answer our research questions we have chosen to deeply explore the
entrepreneurial journey via qualitative methodology. The complex phenomenon of the
entrepreneurial journey, the shortcomings in existing research and our wish to gain a
clear understanding of the entrepreneurial journey led us to engage in qualitative
methodology. As Patton noted qualitative findings are evaluated by their considerable
significance, which is judged in turn by how solid and well harmonised evidence is, and
how the findings deepen our thorough understanding of the phenomenon, and to what
extent the findings are compatible with other research findings (Patton, 2002, cited in
Jamali, 2009). Hence, as outlined in the methodology section of this paper, a systematic
qualitative study will be conducted to be able to provide a thorough understanding of
complex phenomenon of entrepreneurial journey. Since the main aim of this research is
to explore the entrepreneurial journey, the existing literature related to this subject was
also used to guide the development of interview questions.
When it comes to the methodology of the research, the entrepreneurial journey
phenomenon may be multi-levelled and the storytelling method, together with thematic
analysis, is an appropriate research methodology to explain its causality. It also may
enhance the possibility of finding causal relations within the entrepreneurial journey
phenomenon. As Steyaert states, 'every entrepreneurial endeavour follows and writes its
own story' (Steyaert, 1997). In this research, stories told in a storytelling arena
(interview) will be used as a means of articulating the entrepreneurial journey
phenomenon within the EU (Johansson, 2004). In entrepreneurship literature,
'Storytelling is now widely regarded as a currency in which communities of practice
trade, the means through which they exchange experiences and learn from which others
failures.' (Brown et al., 2009). In addition to the storytelling method, thematic analysis
will be also used to grasp emerging patterns and discover the text’s overt structure.
4
Thematic analysis simply provides a creative way for breaking up the text, finding
themes in it and facilitating the depiction of these themes (Stirling, 2001).
To enrich understanding of the entrepreneurial journey within the EU region we will try
to unearth heterogeneous stories of five EU entrepreneurs. As Lounsbury and Glynn
stated stories are of paramount importance in the processes that enable new businesses
to emerge (Lounsbury and Glynn, 2001). "Stories that are told by or about entrepreneurs
define a new venture in ways that can lead to favorable interpretations of the wealthcreating possibilities of the venture; this enables resource flows to the new enterprise"
(Lounsbury and Glynn, 2001).
In order to support our dataset, related relevant concept and models relating to the
entrepreneurial journey will be applied to our research study. This includes Shane and
Venkataraman's entrepreneurship definition which posits opportunity discovery,
evaluation and exploitation stages and Timmons’ entrepreneurial process model will be
our basic guidelines in order to understand European entrepreneurs' experiences. In
practice every entrepreneurial journey differs from every other but in this research study
the entrepreneurial journey will be analysed in a three-stage pattern; opportunity
discovery, evaluation and exploitation (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000).
Also as recommended by Braun and Clarke, the write-up of our thematic analysis will
include "concise, coherent, logical, non-repetitive, and interesting account of the story
the data tell – within and across themes" to narrate the complex story of entrepreneurial
journeys in a way that convinces the reader of the validity of our analysis (Braun and
Clarke, 2006). Also, extracts and quotations from the interview transcripts will be
embedded within the analytic narrative, illustrating the entrepreneurial story that is
being discussed (Braun and Clarke, 2006).
1.5 Outline of the Study
Our write-up construction will be structured as follows; in the second chapter entitled
“Literature Review" we will try to situate our research project within the domain of
5
entrepreneurship and develop and acknowledge a clear understanding of previous
studies on the topic of our research question. Also at the end of this chapter we will
demonstrate how our project will add to the body of existing knowledge on the topic of
our research project. The third chapter of our paper entitled “Methodology" outlines the
methods most appropriate to the philosophical context we have chosen and justify our
choice. In this section the strengths and weaknesses of our chosen methodological tools
and research context will be analysed as well. The fourth chapter of our paper, entitled
“Analysis and Discussion”, contains the findings of this research and contains the
analysis arising from findings of the research. This section will enable us to develop
suggestions to understand the nature of the entrepreneurial journey phenomenon. Our
final section, entitled "Conclusions" presents contributions of our study and sets out the
overall assessment of the whole research project. There are also two appendices to this
report – the first of which sets out general information about the interviewees while the
second sets out the semi-structured interview questions.
6
CHAPTER TWO
Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
Since we are trying to explore the process of the entrepreneurial journey within the EU
region the point of the literature review is looking at the entrepreneurial process and
interactions between entrepreneurs, opportunities and resources. “New industries
emerge when entrepreneurs succeed in mobilising resources in response to perceived
opportunities” (Aldrich and Fiol, 1994). To be able to visualise an entrepreneurial
journey we need to understand the entrepreneur and the project first and then the links
between them throughout the stages (start-up, survival and or development) of the
journey process, and finally the impact of the environment, and hence of other
entrepreneurs and the various resources provided by the environment (Bruyat and
Julien, 2001).
As Baumol noted, "the study of business without an understanding of entrepreneurship
is like the study of Shakespeare in which the Prince of Denmark has been expunged
from the discussion of Hamlet." (Baumol, 1989, cited in Shane and Venkataraman,
2000). In their seminal article, Shane and Venkataraman note that, most academic
researchers have defined entrepreneurship as answering who the entrepreneur is and
what his or her function is (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000). Scholars simply ignored
the opportunities' function in the process of the entrepreneurial journey. (Shane and
Venkataraman, 2000). In line with this assessment Shane and Venkataraman define
entrepreneurship as, "how, by whom, and with what effects opportunities to create
future goods and services are discovered, evaluated, and exploited." (Shane and
Venkataraman, 2000). Each of these steps mentioned in the definition of Shane and
Venkataraman – discovery, evaluation, and exploitation – are inextricably linked and
serve to define the entrepreneurial journey process (Choi and Shepherd, 2004 cited in
Haynie et al, 2009).
7
Timmons and Spinelli cover the process-oriented meaning of the entrepreneurship:
"Entrepreneurship is a way of thinking, reasoning, and acting that is opportunity
obsessed, holistic in approach, and leadership balanced. Entrepreneurship results in the
creation, enhancement, realisation and renewal of value, not just for owners, but for all
participants and stakeholders. At the heart of this process is the creation and/or
recognition of opportunities, followed by the will and initiative to seize these
opportunities. It requires a willingness to take risks - both personal and financial - but in
a very calculated fashion in order to constantly shift the odds to your favor, balancing
the risk with the potential reward. Typically, entrepreneurs devise ingenious strategies
to marshall their limited resources." This definition covers the crucial ingredients of the
Timmons' entrepreneurial process (journey) model; opportunity evaluation, resource
marshalling, and entrepreneurial team composition (Timmons and Spinelli, 2007).
Timmons and Spinelli's definition represents a holistic approach to the entrepreneurial
journey. According to this holistic definition, If we put all different parts of this
dynamic and ambiguous entrepreneurial process together we can visualise the
entrepreneurial journey picture.
Shane and Venkataraman mainly deal with (1) why, when, and how opportunities arise
(2) why, when, and how some people and not others discover and exploit these
opportunities; and (3) why, when, and how different types of action are used to exploit
these opportunities." (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000). Also we can at least adjust the
current discussion about the entrepreneurial journey to include the frequently changing
market and economic conditions, government regulations, societal demographic
characteristics, and new information technologies (Alstete, 2008). Entrepreneurship is a
complex and ambiguous phenomenon, and the content of the concept may change over
time (Sassmannshausen and Gladbach, 2011).
2.2 Entrepreneurial Opportunities
Shane and Venkataraman view entrepreneurship as “the nexus of two phenomena: the
presence of lucrative opportunities and the presence of enterprising individuals” (Shane
and Venkataraman, 2000). Early scholars of entrepreneurship defined entrepreneurial
8
opportunities as "... those situations in which new goods, services, raw materials, and
organising methods can be introduced and sold at greater than their cost of production
(Casson, 1982, cited in Shane and Venkataraman, 2000)". This definition goes on to
state that "opportunity evaluation describes the process of evaluating a set of
circumstances that if acted upon, may result in wealth generating products and
services". More recently, Eckhardt and Shane defined entrepreneurial opportunities as
situations in which new goods, services, raw materials, markets and organising methods
can be introduced through the formation of new means, ends, or means-ends
relationships (Eckhardt and Shane, 2003). Entrepreneurial discovery is defined by
Eckhardt and Shane as "the perception of a new means-ends framework to incorporate
information, incompletely or partially neglected by prices, that has the potential to be
incorporated in prices and thereby efficiently guide the resource allocation decisions of
others." (Eckhardt and Shane, 2003). "Entrepreneurs bring new means-ends decision
making frameworks into the price system by forming perceptions and beliefs about how
to allocate resources better than they are currently allocated or would be allocated in the
future on the basis of information not incorporated in prices." (Eckhardt and Shane,
2003).
The early work of entrepreneurial scholars categorised a wide range of entrepreneurial
actions including (1) bringing new goods and services or new qualities of existing
goods and services to the market; (2) introducing new approaches to production; (3)
making products and services available for the new markets; (4) using new sources of
supply of raw materials or semi-finished goods; and (5) addressing certain new
organisational forms in the industry (Schumpeter, 1934 cited in Dutta and Crossan,
2005).
Entrepreneurial literature provides three different ways of categorising opportunities:
"by the locus of the changes that generate the opportunity; by the source of the
opportunities themselves; and by the initiator of the change." (Eckhardt and Shane,
2003). Another categorisation of entrepreneurial opportunities is based upon the actor
that initiates the change; for example, non-commercial organisations, such as
governments or universities; existing commercial institutions in an industry, such as
9
current market actors and their vendors and customers; and new commercial players in
an industry such as individual entrepreneurs and diverse entrants (Klevorick et al., 1995
cited in Eckhardt and Shane, 2003). Different kinds of market actors initiate the changes
that lead to entrepreneurial opportunities, and the type of initiator is most likely to affect
the development of the discovery as well as the market value and lifespan of the
opportunities (Klevorick et al., 1995 cited in Eckhardt and Shane, 2003).
2.3 Opportunity vs. Necessity Based Entrepreneurial Journeys
Entrepreneurial ventures emerge from different situations and motives that drive the
critical decision to launch a business. Reynolds et al. clearly distinguish between
“opportunity-based”
and
“necessity-based”
entrepreneurship
in
their
Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor annual report (Reynolds et al., 2005). The decision to become
self-employed may stem from the push effect of unemployment (necessity-based
entrepreneurship), or from pull effects induced by a growing economy creating
entrepreneurial opportunities (opportunity based entrepreneurship) (Reynolds et al.,
2005). Pull factors are related to the expectation that it will provide greater material and
or nonmaterial benefits (Uhlaner and Thurik, 2007). Push factors are closely associated
with some degree of dissatisfaction (wage-employment, unemployment) (Uhlaner and
Thurik, 2007).
The 2004 Global Entrepreneurship Monitor report indicates that there is great
variability in the relative distribution of opportunity and necessity entrepreneurship
among the research sample (34 countries in total). (Reynolds et al., 2002 cited in Bhola
et al, 2006). Opportunity-driven entrepreneurship is more common in high level income
countries (e.g., France, the United Kingdom), while necessity entrepreneurs are more
prevalent in low level income countries (e.g., Hungary and Poland) (Reynolds et al.,
2002 cited in Bhola et al, 2006). As regards the labour market, developed countries are
characterised by a more advanced labour market or easy access to stronger safety nets,
so there seems less need for starting up a business and that is why developed countries
represent lower range necessity-based entrepreneurial journey rates (Reynolds et al.,
2002 cited in Bhola et al, 2006).
10
2.4 The Nature of Entrepreneurial Opportunities: The Schumpeterian View and
the Kirznerian View
There are two opposite views regarding the nature of entrepreneurial opportunities.
According to the Schumpeterian view, "opportunities emerge out of the entrepreneur’s
internal disposition to initiate changes in the economy." (Dutta and Crossan, 2005).
According to Schumpeter, "the entrepreneur is the innovator who “shocks” and disturbs
the economic equilibrium during times of uncertainty, change, and technological
upheaval." (Dutta and Crossan, 2005). In Schumpeter’s perspective, "The entrepreneur
is primarily involved in a process of creative destruction in which entrepreneurial
opportunities arise essentially as a result of a disequilibrating action of the
entrepreneur." (Dutta and Crossan, 2005).
Schumpeter emphasises the importance of the personal traits and motivation of the
entrepreneur and suggests that the entrepreneur has heroic qualities (Dutta and Crossan,
2005). Schumpeter argues that, "entrepreneurs are the rare breed of individuals
motivated intrinsically to utilize the benefits of technological, demographic, and social
changes to create upheavals in the current state of equilibrium and to usher new
products and services or new ways of working." (Schumpeter, 1934 cited in Dutta and
Crossan, 2005). In addition, "Schumpeter is silent on the role of information or the
knowledge that the entrepreneur must have access to in order to initiate a specific
change outcome." (Dutta and Crossan, 2005). The Schumpeterian perspective on
entrepreneurial opportunities emphasise that "opportunities are created rather than
discovered. Also, in the overall process of the emergence of entrepreneurial
opportunities, entrepreneurs’ personal attributes, rather than their personal knowledge
resources, play the most critical role." (Dutta and Crossan, 2005).
Contrary to the Schumpeterian view, Kirzner’s (1979, 1997) theory of entrepreneurial
alertness and discovery is concerned with understanding how certain individuals secure
profits on the basis of knowledge and information gaps that arise between people in the
market" (Dutta and Crossan, 2005). In contrast to the Schumpeterian view "The
Kirznerian entrepreneur is essentially concerned with restoring balance in the economy
11
by embarking on entrepreneurial opportunities that arise out of knowledge and of
information asymmetries among its constituents." (Dutta and Crossan, 2005). Kirzner
argues that "the entrepreneur discovers opportunities by acting as an arbitrageur or a
price adjuster in the marketplace, capitalizing on knowledge or on information
asymmetries." (Dutta and Crossan, 2005).
According to Kirzner, "the price-adjusting process capitalizing on information
disparities or on ignorance in the marketplace engaged in by the entrepreneur allows
entrepreneurial alertness to flourish." (Dutta and Crossan, 2005). "Entrepreneurial
alertness becomes an idiosyncratic resource with the following characteristics: (1) It is
more than simply superior knowledge about market opportunities, but rather, “... the
abstract, very general and rarefied kind of knowledge which we must ultimately credit
with discovering and exploiting the opportunities unearthed ...” (Kirzner, 1963, cited in
Dutta and Crossan, 2005). "(2) It is non-deployable and tacit, and decisions to deploy it
across multiple opportunities are difficult to decide on the part of the entrepreneur. (3)
No market exists for hiring entrepreneurial services—rather, entrepreneurial resources
have to be realized and utilized by the entrepreneurs themselves. (4) Entrepreneurship is
costless in that it is spontaneously learnt or acquired by the entrepreneur without
deliberately searching for the information gaps that lead to emerging opportunities."
(Harper, 2003 cited in Dutta and Crossan, 2005).
The Kirznerian view states that "opportunity recognition cannot occur in the absence of
the entrepreneur’s day-to-day knowledge. In fact, alertness and day-to-day knowledge
go hand-in-hand, in order for opportunities to be discovered by the entrepreneur."
(Dutta and Crossan, 2005). Furthermore, "the process of opportunity recognition is
more complex than simply identifying knowledge gaps in a particular market by the
entrepreneur. It can take the form of a complex web of information discontinuities and
knowledge gaps across markets, technologies, and substitutes over time-frames." (Dutta
and Crossan, 2005).
Dutta and Crossan support this view of entrepreneurial opportunities and emphasise that
"Kirzner focuses not only on entrepreneurial alertness and the idiosyncratic knowledge
12
base of the individual but also on how this knowledge combines with entrepreneurial
imagination and interpretation in order to lead to opportunities." (Dutta and Crossan,
2005). According to Dutta and Crossan, entrepreneurial learning begins when an
entrepreneur develops an intuition with regard to entrepreneurial opportunity based
upon his/her past experience and recognition of information patterns (Dutta and
Crossan, 2005). The entrepreneur uses these patterns to help make sense of information
to interpret an insight through mental practice (Dutta and Crossan, 2005). Dutta and
Crossan very much emphasise the critical role of the entrepreneurial network in the
opportunity interpretation phase and suggest that the process of opportunity
interpretation arises on the grounds of the social interactions between the members of
entrepreneurial networks (Dutta and Crossan, 2005). Individual interpretation can be
strengthened by sharing it with a group of people who can then engage in collective
exploration, interpretation, and integration of the entrepreneurial idea, to transform it
into a common understanding of a doable business concept (Dutta and Crossan, 2005).
The business concept is brought to maturity and refined through these network
interactions and constructive conversations (Dutta and Crossan, 2005). In the long run,
the common-collective understanding of the entrepreneurial concept can be
institutionalised at organisational level in the shape of systems, structures, strategy, and
procedures (Dutta and Crossan, 2005).
Haynie et al., suggest some significant insights into the opportunity evaluation decisionmaking process from Kirzner's "the exploitation of an idea that is neither valuable nor
rare can only lead to the generation of average profits" idea (Kirzner, 1997 cited in
Haynie et al., 2009). The entrepreneur’s opportunity evaluation is not concentrated on
an opportunity that is ‘attractive to someone’ – but instead is concentrated on ‘attractive
to me’ in the context of the pre-existing knowledge, skills, beliefs and available
resources (Haynie et al., 2009). Opportunity evaluation decisions are built upon futurefocused, cognitive representations of ‘what will be’ assumptions (Haynie et al., 2009).
Haynie et al., suggest envisioning the future and results technique for the opportunity
evaluation process – dreaming up entrepreneurial ventures that do not as yet exist,
bringing them into creation,
gaining market acceptance, creating strategies for
13
exploitation, future construction of the firm and different outcomes may result from
entrepreneurial activity through mental simulations (Haynie et al., 2009).
2.5 Entrepreneurial Resources
The entrepreneurial journey requires innovative use of resources to be able to capture
opportunities. Since new ventures seek to create wealth for shareholders, entrepreneurs
involve themselves in efforts to detect valuable resources and opportunities that are yet
not discovered or exploited by other market actors (Lounsbury and Glynn, 2001). This
exhaustive resource-picking requires the purchase of resources “that are undervalued or
overlooked.” (Lounsbury and Glynn, 2001).
According to the resource-based view, (RBV) stronger resource bases enable firms to
survive the consequences of bad decisions and environmental impacts (Hanlon and
Saunders, 2007). For new ventures, limited initial resources narrow down the variety of
alternatives available to the entrepreneur, which, later on, company actions and
preferences are tied to the capabilities of the firm, and may act as a buffer against the
liabilities of smallness (Hanlon and Saunders, 2007). Resources that are valuable, rare,
costly to imitate, and difficult to replace can equip the company with a competitive
advantage over other market actors if the firm is organised to realise those opportunities
(Hanlon and Saunders, 2007). Achieving this competitive edge necessitates the
entrepreneur to be engaged in some sub-processes, including managing resources by
adding to them and shedding them, configuring existing resources into resource
bundles, and leveraging the resources (Hanlon and Saunders, 2007). The RBV requires
social activity and interaction and gives a key social role to the entrepreneur as an
assembler and neat organiser of resources (Hanlon and Saunders, 2007). Hanlon and
Saunders use the concept of support instead of resource "emphasizes the social context
of resource acquisition and the importance of considering not only resources but also
resource providers" and define support as "the act of providing an entrepreneur with
access to a valued resource and a supporter as any individual who willingly performs
such an act." (Hanlon and Saunders, 2007).
14
2.6 Challenges Along the Entrepreneurial Journey
In a seminal paper, Stinchcombe argued that new ventures have a higher tendency to die
compared to old organisations (Stinchcombe, 1965 cited in Singh et al, 1986). This
liability of newness theory/phenomenon may arise mainly from internal processes such
as the need of young organisations to learn new roles as social actors, the establishment
of trust among strangers, coordinating with new staff and coping with problems of the
two-sided socialisation of participants, as well as both their incompetence to compete
effectively with pre-existing large companies and their lower levels of legitimacy
(Stinchcombe, 1965 cited in Singh et al, 1986). As new ventures grow older, they are
more likely to develop stronger exchange relationships with other companies, become a
piece of the power hierarchy, and powerful collective actors will endorse their actions
(Stinchcombe, 1968 cited in Singh et al., 1986). Thus, older companies are more likely
to be regarded as legitimate and this increases their access to public resources, and
increases their chances to stay alive (Singh et al., 1986). Lack of credibility, stemming
from having no remarkable ‘track record’, makes it hard to reach public resources for
new and nascent entrepreneurs. To be able get such credibility new ventures must be
recognised as viable market actors by certification gatekeepers (Lounsbury and Glynn,
2001). Nascent and new entrepreneurs, have to be evaluated as ‘legitimate’ before they
start trading in the market place (Aldrich and Fiol 1994). According to Aldrich and Fiol,
lack of legitimacy is notable among the many problems facing innovative entrepreneurs,
since both entrepreneurs and shareholders may not fully comprehend the nature of the
new ventures, and their conformity to existing corporate rules may still be in question
(Aldrich and Fiol, 1994). “Identifying opportunities, assembling resources, and
recruiting and training employees are challenges facing all entrepreneurs, and all of
these activities require the cooperation and strategic interaction of individuals and
groups." (Aldrich and Fiol, 1994). “However, founders of entirely new activities, by
definition, lack the familiarity and credibility that constitute the fundamental basis of
interaction.” (Aldrich and Fiol, 1994). “Many of the other constraints on a new
industry's growth are thus magnified." (Aldrich and Fiol, 1994). “Access to capital,
markets, and governmental protection are all partially dependent on the level of
legitimacy achieved by an emerging industry." (Aldrich and Fiol, 1994). At this point
15
social interactions play an important role. Hoang and Antoncic emphasize the role of
the network to support the development of their venture (Hoang and Antoncic 2003).
According to Hoang and Antoncic ‘social networks are defined by a set of actors
(individuals or organisations) and a set of linkages between the actors.’ (Hoang and
Antoncic 2003). Also "Interpersonal and interorganizational relationships are viewed as
the media through which actors gain access to a variety of resources held by other
actors." (Hoang and Antoncic 2003). "The reliance on networks is not constrained to the
start-up stage. Entrepreneurs continue to rely on networks for business information,
advice, and problem solving, with some contacts providing multiple resources." (Hoang
and Antoncic, 2003).
As Baumol points out, the range of options available to the entrepreneur and the
consequences of any choice among them is unknown, thus, there is no room for the
innovating entrepreneur and his dependence on optimisation calculations (Baumol,
1993). During the opportunity exploitation -realisation process, individuals are occupied
with undertaking entrepreneurial activities like acquiring the necessary resources, that
change market prices and inevitably provide information to others (Eckhardt and Shane,
2003). This interaction process increases the two-sided awareness among market actors
regarding the nature of the opportunity and eventually might either encourage or
discourage the entrepreneur pursuing the opportunity (Eckhardt and Shane, 2003).
2.7 Timmons’ Model of the Entrepreneurial Process
Timmons’ model of the entrepreneurial process (Figure 2.1) identifies driving forces
that dominate this dynamic entrepreneurial process: (1) It is driven by opportunity, (2) It
is driven by a lead entrepreneur and a venture team, (3) It requires parsimonious care of
the resources and creativity (4) It requires a good fit and balance among these driving
forces, (5) Lastly it is holistic and integrated (Timmons and Spinelli, 2007). Timmons
and Spinelli also emphasise that these are the controllable ingredients of the
entrepreneurial process components that can be assessed and altered in a positive way
(Timmons and Spinelli, 2007). Throughout the due diligence process conducted by
investors, and founders, these themes are the focus in analysing the risks and trade-offs
16
and determining what can be changed and modified to improve the fit and balance
(Timmons and Spinelli, 2007). Timmons and Spinelli also noted that an entrepreneur,
like a symphony conductor or a coach, has to mix and balance a group of diverse people
with different skills, talents, and personalities into a superb team (Timmons and
Spinelli, 2007). The complicated decisions and a number of alternatives make
entrepreneurship similar to game of chess (Timmons and Spinelli, 2007).
Figure 2.1 Timmons’ Entrepreneurial Process Model (Timmons and Spinelli, 2007).
Timmons and Spinelli summarise the crucial characteristics of the good opportunity; the
greater the growth rate, continuousness, and reliability of the gross and net margins and
cash flow, the greater the opportunity, (2) the more imperfect/immature the market, the
greater the opportunity (3) the greater the discontinuity, and turmoil, the greater the
opportunity, (4) The greater the inconsistencies in the quality of existing goods and
services, lead and lag times, and the gaps in knowledge, the greater the opportunity
(Timmons and Spinelli, 2007).
Timmons’ model of the entrepreneurial process has its foundations in "opportunity
recognition, founding conditions and emergence, resource acquisition and development
17
and human capital and decision making." (Spinelli et al., 2006 cited in Minniti et al.,
2006). In Timmons’ model the journey starts with the detection of an opportunity to use
different types of resources differently – perhaps more efficiently than they are
currently being used (Spinelli et al., 2006 cited in Minniti et al., 2006). The main role of
the lead entrepreneur and the team is to harmonise all of these key components in a
rapidly changing environment (Spinelli et al., 2006 cited in Minniti et al., 2006).
Timmons’ model (Figure 2.1) visualises three components of the entrepreneurship
process that can be assessed, influenced, shaped, and altered (Spinelli et al., 2006 cited
in Minniti et al., 2006). "The entrepreneur is responsible for assessing the opportunity,
marshalling resources to capture the opportunity, and developing a team to exploit the
opportunity for value creation." (Spinelli et al., 2006 cited in Minniti et al., 2006).
"Creativity, communication, and leadership moderate the strength of the model
components and increase the likelihood of venture success." (Spinelli et al., 2006 cited
in Minniti et al., 2006). "Finally, the business plan provides the language and code for
communicating the quality of the three driving forces, of the Timmons’ model, and of
their fit and balance." (Spinelli et al., 2006 cited in Minniti et al., 2006).
The Timmons’ model parallels Kirzner's view of discovery and alertness to
opportunities in the marketplace (Spinelli et al., 2006 cited in Minniti et al., 2006). On
the other hand, the Timmons model argues that a discovery is not enough for
entrepreneurship and "the process of opportunity identification, evaluation, and
exploitation must be balanced by resource acquisition and team development" (Spinelli
et al., 2006 cited in Minniti et al., 2006). "Thus, enactment of the opportunity in creative
ways (new business models) is central to the process of entrepreneurship." (Spinelli et
al., 2006 cited in Minniti et al., 2006).
2.8 The Entrepreneurial Journey
The entrepreneurial journey has historically been associated with a pursuit of an
individual (Hanlon and Saunders, 2007). Hanlon and Saunders noted that the isolated
figure of the entrepreneur who jumps all sorts of hurdles alone portrays an out-of-date
18
misinterpretation (Hanlon and Saunders, 2007). While there are many successful
entrepreneurs as the driver of the business, "these stars rarely shine as bright without a
myriad of support along the way." (Hanlon and Saunders, 2007).
According to Cha and Bae, the entrepreneurial journey starts when entrepreneurial
opportunity is discovered by nascent entrepreneurs (Cha and Bae, 2010). Cha and Bae
highlight the importance of ‘the internal driving force’ to deal with obstacles along the
journey (Cha and Bae, 2010). They developed the concept of ‘entrepreneurial intent’ as
an internal driving force of opportunity realisation (Cha and Bae, 2010). Entrepreneurial
intent is the mental process that spots the value of a new business opportunity and
locates it at the intersection of strategic intent and entrepreneurial mind-set (Cha and
Bae, 2010). Cha and Bae also state that the entrepreneurial journey arising from
entrepreneurial intent is a process of opportunity realisation through the combination of
several resources (Cha and Bae, 2010). On the other hand, Cheng and Ven introduced
the concept of the innovation journey. Cheng and Ven noted that organizations embark
upon the innovation journey each time they invent, develop, and implement new
products, programs, services, or administrative arrangements (Cheng and Ven, 1996).
‘This journey typically consists of entrepreneurs who, with support and funding of
upper managers or investors, undertake a sequence of events that create and transform a
new idea into an implemented reality. Depending on the scope of the innovation, this
journey can vary greatly in the number, duration and complexity of events that unfold
along the way from the initiation of a developmental effort to its implementation or
termination. Whatever its scope, this journey is an exploration into the unknown process
by which novelty emerges." (Cheng and Ven, 1996).
During the literature review the field of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial journey
was explored in some detail. The works of Timmons and Spinelli (2007) provided a
clear structure for grasping the process of the entrepreneurial journey. The Timmons’
model was chosen because it incorporates many of the other concepts and, at the same
time, divides the entrepreneurial journey process into three neat sections which can be
used to further analyse our research data. Also three components (opportunity,
resources and team) of the entrepreneurship process visualized in the Timmons’ model
19
constitute the framework of the entrepreneurial journey in a way that is compatible with
our research purposes. More importantly, in a fast changing entrepreneurial
environment, the components of the Timmons’ model are in constant motion,
expanding and contracting as the environment and opportunity change (Spinelli et al.,
2006 cited in Minniti et al., 2006).
20
CHAPTER THREE
Methodology
3.1 Our Qualitative Approach
A qualitative research method has been chosen because it offers a better insight into our
research questions than the quantitative and mixed methods. Our research questions
require in-depth analysis rather than a large number of superficial dataset.
According to Johannisson and Mönsted, research concerning the dynamics of
entrepreneurship is mostly conceptual or dependent on survey data (Johannisson and
Mönsted 1997). In business research literature, 'whether structured or not, interviews are
traditionally considered as interrogations' (Johansson, 2004). On the other hand, the
narrative approach in entrepreneurship offers an alternative option, which means that
the interview situation is viewed as a storytelling arena (Johansson, 2004). Yet
entrepreneurship journals contain few articles which discuss the explicit use of narrative
though recently narrative studies have been surfacing in the field of entrepreneurship
(Johansson, 2004). In the long run, this increasing interest in a narrative approach will
make a huge contribution to the domain of entrepreneurship.
There is a clear consensus that when dealing with social phenomena such as the
entrepreneurial journey, rich detail is so crucial to the research process that qualitative
studies are to be preferred (Jack et al., 2008). Moreover, qualitative approach has
‘sensitivity to the details of self-enforcing and trust-building idiosyncratic exchange
processes.’ (Johannisson and Mönsted, 1997). Also qualitative research in
entrepreneurship stimulates further studies by introducing new theoretical ideas (Hoang
and Antoncic, 2003). Our epistemological standing requires the minimisation of
distance between the researchers and the entrepreneurs and therefore there will be close
interaction with the individual entrepreneurs (Hill et al., 1999).
"Stories are structured in three time-based structural components—beginning, middle,
and end—with transitions and event sequences propelled by plot lines and twists and
21
shaped by defining characters." (Lounsbury and Glynn, 2001). A story is made up of
the three elements: "a narrative subject in search of an object, a destinator (an extratextual force, the source of the subject's ideology), and a set of forces that either help or
hinder the subject in acquiring the desired object." (Fiol, 1989). In line with this story
pattern the entrepreneurial journey story might be structured as follows: "the narrative
subject as the individual entrepreneur or the new venture; the ultimate object or goal of
the narrative as a successful new enterprise, profitability, VC funding, or a positive
reputation with potential stakeholders; and the destinator as the corporate and societal
environment in which the narrative subject operates." (Lounsbury and Glynn, 2001).
The stories gained from interviews 'illustrate how opportunities are recognised and
realised through processes of thinking, reflection, exchange and interaction. This means
that the entrepreneur is in dialogue with himself as a result of interaction with the world
of others. The storytelling interview reflects, and is in itself also a part of, this ongoing
dialogue through which ‘windows of opportunities’ are perceived and enacted.'
(Johansson, 2004). Thus the storytelling interview together with thematic analysis is a
creative way of illustrating how entrepreneurs go through the roller coaster of
entrepreneurial journey. Our ability to document the real entrepreneurial journey stories
is dependent upon our interaction level with entrepreneurs. In this case, a narrative
approach combined with thematic analysis, will allow us to keep close to the local
entrepreneurial fields.
"Analysis of qualitative material is a necessarily subjective process capitalizing on the
researchers’ appreciation of the enormity, contingency and fragility of signification."
(Stirling, 2001). Meaning of a social phenomenon can only be understood in a social
context (Saussure, 1974 cited in Stirling, 2001), so the philosophical concept of
objectivity is necessarily excluded from the equation in qualitative research to be able to
conduct analysis outside positivistic efforts for objectivity (Denzin, 1994 cited in
Stirling, 2001). "The value of qualitative research lies in its exploratory and explanatory
power, prospects that are unachievable without methodological rigour at all stages of
the research process – from design, to field work, to analysis." (Stirling, 2001).
22
Lounsbury and Glyn highlight the role of culture in entrepreneurship and noted that
"since many entrepreneurial ventures are unknown to external audiences, the creation of
an appealing and coherent story may be one of the most crucial assets for a nascent
enterprise." (Lounsbury and Glynn, 2001). They add that "a key aspect of stories is their
ability to reduce uncertainty, a critical asset that can enable the success of nascent
entrepreneurial ventures." (Lounsbury and Glynn, 2001). They repeatedly note that
"cultural entrepreneurship and a focus on entrepreneurial stories can be usefully
employed to shed light on entrepreneurial processes at multiple stages of development."
(Lounsbury and Glynn, 2001). Lounsbury and Glynn evaluated the function of
entrepreneurial stories "as that of crafting identifying and legitimating accounts of
entrepreneurial stocks of resource and institutional capital to acquire capital and create
wealth. To function effectively, the content of entrepreneurial stories must align with
audience interests and normative beliefs to enable favorable interpretations of a new
venture; we argue that it is extant stocks of entrepreneurs’ resource capital and
institutional capital that shape the content of stories." (Lounsbury and Glynn, 2001).
"Stories, like other cultural artifacts, function to align an entrepreneur’s underlying set
of cultural mission, identity, and resources with that of key external constituents."
(Schein, 1992 cited in Lounsbury and Glynn, 2001). "Once articulated, understood, and
repeated, entrepreneurial stories become institutionalized accounts that provide both
explanations of, and rationales for, entrepreneurial activity; in turn, such
comprehensibility (or understandability) is the basis for legitimacy." (Suchman, 1995
cited in Lounsbury and Glynn, 2001). "A key challenge for entrepreneurial stories,
therefore, is to establish a unique identity that is neither ambiguous nor unfamiliar, but
legitimate." (Suchman, 1995 cited in Lounsbury and Glynn, 2001).
3.2 Choice of Research Method
3.2.1 Data Collection Method
Qualitative research is stronger on long descriptive narrative perspectives than on
relying on statistical tables (Silverman, 2006). Also the semi-structured interviews
23
allow the researcher to explore a variety of issues in greater depth than a quantitative
survey (Bryman et al., 2008). Since we are beginning the research with a fairly clear
focus, rather than very general notion of trying to do research on a topic, it is crucial to
use semi-structured interviews, so that the more specific points can be addressed
(Bryman and Bell, 2007). 'Prior to finalising the design for this study, a questionnaire
version of the structured interview will be informally piloted to a small group of
entrepreneurs outside the sample's population who had agreed in advance to complete
the questionnaire and then grant the researcher a follow-up interview.' (Hansen, 1995).
More importantly "an interview allows the researcher to pursue half-answered questions
and to encourage more thorough and detailed responses." (Sommer and Sommer, 1997).
"The key element of the interview is the verbal give-and-take between two people with
the questions and answers providing its form." (Sommer and Sommer, 1997).
Additionally, "the face-to-face contact allows for observation of general appearance,
overall health, personality, nonverbal behavior, and other individual characteristics"
(Sommer and Sommer, 1997). "With encouragement and the recognition of genuine
interest on the part of the interviewer, people will reveal a great deal about themselves
and about their beliefs and feelings." (Sommer and Sommer, 1997). "A further
advantage of the interview is that people who may be unwilling or unable to write out a
long, coherent answer are often willing to say it to an interviewer." (Sommer and
Sommer, 1997).
Sometimes it is vital to design a semi-structured interview where all respondents are
asked the same questions, but the order of questions differs from one respondent to the
other (Sommer and Sommer, 1997). A semi-structured interview gives the researcher
the greatest flexibility in terms of changing the wording or sentence structure to better
fit different situations (Sommer and Sommer, 1997). This flexibility characteristic of
semi-structured interviews may be more convenient for getting in-depth information
where the interviewer does not want to be restricted by a pre-determined list of
questions but would like the advantage of having asked the same questions of all
respondents (Sommer and Sommer, 1997).
24
As for the data collection method, a semi-structured interview was chosen where a list
of questions (Appendix 2) on specific topics was prepared beforehand but the
interviewee has a good deal of leeway in how to reply. In total there are five interviews,
carried out with entrepreneurs who have started businesses across the EU in the last five
years. All interviews were conducted in English. The interviewees (Appendix 1) were
established through our own personal networks. Basically we went through our entire
friend list including facebook, twitter and linkedin friends as well. After searching
through our personal network we carried out five interviews with entrepreneurs who
were willing to be interviewed. All of the interviews were audio-taped, transcribed and
analysed thematically. Each interview lasted roughly 30 to 40 minutes. A Smartphone
note-taking application was used as a means of remembering and recording personal
thoughts during research project. As Sommer and Sommer note, interview recording
increases the chance of gathering more accurate information and also permits analysis
of hesitation phenomena, the various "ahems" sounds made by the participants
(Sommer and Sommer, 1997).
Gaining access to senior level managers might be extremely difficult, and arranging a
mutually convenient time in which to conduct interviews, might last long hours
(Bryman and Bell, 2007). That is why it is particularly important to structure a request
for an interview in a way that is most likely to lead to a positive response (Bryman and
Bell, 2007). As Bryman and Bell suggest, upon identifying potential interviewees they
should be contacted (Bryman and Bell, 2007). During the phone call it was clearly
stated who we are, the reason for calling and the desired outcome of our research study.
A number of questions were asked relating to entrepreneurial journeys across the EU.
All of the discussions took place in the entrepreneur’s place of business, because
familiar surroundings are conducive to a more relaxed and open discussion (Mitchell,
1993 cited in Hill et al., 1999). The discussions were held in a very informal manner in
order to encourage the respondents to cooperate and talk freely about his/her
entrepreneurial journey within the EU. Probing questions are used to dig down into
further detail where necessary. With the help of probing questions we can delve into the
25
main reasons for the entrepreneur’s actions. If necessary the interviews could be
conducted using video chat software and recorded and transcribed for later analysis.
3.2.2 Data Analysis Method
Data derived from the semi-structured interviews was analysed using two data analysis
methods together. The first method is the storytelling approach (narrative analysis). In
our research, 'interviews are the most accessible method for entering into a conversation
with entrepreneurs: Interviews give an "impression" of the various perspectives and
how they are interconnected, and they provide some insight into the interrelation
between the interpretation of meanings and interactions.' (Steyaert, 1997). The second
method of data analysis/interpretation of qualitative research is thematic analysis in its
simplest form. This deals with qualitative data that involves the creation and application
of data coding by categories. In order to draw conclusion sometimes we need to
transform the qualitative data into numbers. Identifying, analysing and reporting
patterns within data is the main function of Thematic Analysis (Braun and Clarke,
2006). According to Riessman, primary attention is placed on what is said, as opposed
to how, to whom, or for what purpose (Riessman, 2008). Thematic approach is well
suited to a wide range of narrative texts; thematic analysis can be applied to stories that
develop in interview conversations and those found in written documents (Riessman,
2008). The data analysed in this thesis will be semi-structured interviews. Thematic
analysis involves interpreting data in the light of thematics developed by researcher
(influenced by prior and emergent theory, the main aim of the research, the data itself,
political commitments, and other factors) (Riessman, 2008). The thematic analysis
content is the main focus point (minimal focus on how a narrative is spoken or written,
structures of speech, audience or complexities of transcription) (Riessman, 2008).
Thematic analysis also organises and describes data set in rich detail (Braun and Clarke
2006) and 'enables a methodical systematisation of textual data, facilitates the disclosure
of each step in the analytic process, aids the organisation of an analysis and its
presentation, and allows a sensitive, insightful and rich exploration of a text’s overt
structures and underlying patterns' (Stirling, 2001). Clarity of analysis process and
practice of the method is vital (Braun and Clarke 2006). A qualitative approach will
26
result in a high volume of data and this will lead to data management issues. In an
attempt to grasp the major themes within the interview text, each interview transcript
has to be read multiple times. Using a data management programme will ease the
process of summarising, coding and cutting data.
Interview transcripts have to be transcribed into written form so that they can be subject
to thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006). The process of transcription may be seen
as time consuming but it informs the early phases of the data analysis and makes it
possible to have a thorough understanding of the dataset (Braun and Clarke 2006).
Also, thematic analysis does not require prior and detailed theoretical knowledge of
approaches such as grounded theory and DA, it can offer a more accessible form of
analysis, particularly for those early career researchers (Braun and Clarke 2006). Since
thematic analysis is not tied to any pre-existing theoretical framework, it can be used
with different theoretical frameworks (Braun and Clarke 2006). Thematic analysis also
allows flexibility by giving the researcher the power to determine themes in a number of
ways (Braun and Clarke 2006). As long as the theoretical position of a thematic analysis
is made transparent, thematic analysis can be an essentialist or realist method or it can
be a constructionist method (Braun and Clarke 2006).
Thematic analyses can be illustrated by web-like thematic networks that visualise the
main themes in a creative way (Stirling, 2001). This web-like systematisation of
interview data makes the disclosure of each step easier in the analytic analysis
procedure (Stirling, 2001). Thematic networks analysis organises the dataset into three
main groups: "(1) lowest-order premises evident in the text (Basic Themes); (2)
categories of basic themes grouped together to summarise more abstract principles
(Organising Themes); and (3) super-ordinate themes encapsulating the principal
metaphors in the text as a whole (Global Themes)" (Stirling, 2001). These themes are
then visualised in web-like maps with connection points between each theme (Stirling,
2001).
27
In thematic analysis, themes within the qualitative dataset can be identified in two ways:
inductive analysis, "bottom-up" (data-driven) is a process of coding the data without
trying to fit it into a pre-existing coding frame, or the "top-down" approach which is
conducted according to the researcher's analytic preconceptions (Braun and Clarke
2006). In this research project we will adopt the bottom-up approach to be able to get
rich descriptions of entrepreneurial journeys. So, our analysis will be data-driven
instead of analyst-driven top-down approach (Braun and Clarke 2006). Also themes
can be identified at a semantic (explicit) level, or latent (interpretative) level (Boyatzis,
1998 cited in Braun and Clarke, 2006). Thematic analysis usually focuses exclusively
on one level (Braun and Clarke 2006). In semantic approach, the themes are identified
beyond what an interviewee has said (Braun and Clarke 2006). On the other side,
thematic analysis at an interpretative level goes beyond the explicit content of the data
and requires some interpretative effort, as described by Braun and Clarke "imagine our
data three-dimensionally as an uneven blob of jelly, the semantic approach would seek
to describe the surface of the jelly, its form and meaning, while the latent approach
would seek identify the features that gave it that particular form and meaning." (Braun
and Clarke 2006).
Our thematic network analysis can be split into three major stages: (1) the breakdown of
the interview data; (2) the exploration of the dataset; and (3) the final stage is the
integration of the exploration findings (Stirling, 2001). It is of paramount importance to
understand what counts as a theme. A theme is not necessarily dependent on
quantifiable measures and it has to encircle something significant about the dataset in
relation to the research question (Braun and Clarke 2006). To be able to develop a
thematic network, we will start discovering basic themes, and once a group of basic
themes are identified they are then sorted according to the underlying story they are
narrating which become the Organising Themes (Stirling, 2001). Organising Themes
are then re-explained in the light of their basic Themes, and are pieced together to
reveal a single conclusion/theme that constitutes the Global Theme (Stirling, 2001).
Once we complete our thematic construction, it will serve as an illustrative tool in the
interpretation and disclosure of the interview dataset (Stirling, 2001). Too much overlap
between themes destroys the overall story connections, so it is crucial to consider how
28
each theme fits into the broader big picture that we are trying to narrate about our
dataset (Braun and Clarke 2006).
According to Braun and Clarke, there are several pitfalls in thematic analysis which
could result in an incomplete analysis. (1) The write-up of the research project must
provide sufficient and easily identifiable evidence (vivid extracts) of the themes within
the dataset regarding the commonness of the theme. Thematic analysis is not just
putting some extracts together, it requires selection of illustrative extracts with some
analytic narrative that basically paraphrases the qualitative content (Braun and Clarke
2006). (2) The process of identification of themes across the whole data set requires
analytic perception, using interview questions as the themes results in poor analysis
(Braun and Clarke 2006). (3) A lack of coherence and overlap between themes can lead
to an unconvincing analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006). (4) Any mismatch between the
dataset and analytical points (dataset contradicts the claims) results in unfounded
thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006). (5) Again, any mismatch between theory
and analytic points, or between the research questions and the type of thematic analysis
conducted can lead to inauthentic conclusions (Braun and Clarke 2006).
'Stories and narrative knowing are thought to be more fruitful than logo-scientific
knowledge.' (Bruner, 1986 cited in Johansson, 2004). Different variants of narrative
approach are widely used in social science. The shortest path from experience to
knowledge goes through stories (Johansson, 2004). 'Narrative approach can make a
constructive contribution to entrepreneurship research by introducing enhanced
conceptual, epistemological and methodological reflection. They argue that this
approach can offer a greater awareness of the researcher as the creator of the reality
under scrutiny, and of multi-voiced representations and contextualised knowing,
thereby providing an alternative to the predominant ambition in much entrepreneurial
research to explain and predict entrepreneurial behaviour and to generalise findings.'
(Steyaert and Bouwen, 1997 cited in Johansson, 2004).
The narrative approach clearly implies that stories and storytelling is of paramount
importance to the articulation of tacit knowledge and entrepreneurial experience
29
(Johansson, 2004). Therefore, exchange of entrepreneurial journeys can be facilitated
through arranging arenas for entrepreneurial journey stories. Tools and methods entail a
roundabout approach while storytelling gives direct access to the journey. On the other
hand, tools and methods are effective in structuring the entrepreneurial experience in a
way that stories lack. Thus, the narrative approach and thematic analysis will be used
together to articulate the entrepreneurial journey (Johansson, 2004).
3.3 Sampling and Context:
Miles and Huberman define sampling as “taking a smaller chunk of a larger universe.”
(Miles and Huberman, 1994 cited in Hill et al., 1999). The sample for this study was
purposive and contains five entrepreneurs from within the EU region. As Hill et al.,
state, "qualitative researchers usually work with small samples of people nested in
context." (Hill et al., 1999). From a technical perspective, the sample construction is the
weakest part of the study. Without access to a large database of potential respondents, a
convenience or purposive sample will be generated by utilising our own network to
identify and recruit entrepreneurs for the interviews. Mainly academic entrepreneurs
will be interviewed in this study due to the fact that this study is mostly based on the
interviewees' capability to verbally express their stories (Hytti, 2003). Moreover, there
is a assumption that interviewee especially the entrepreneurs are taking valuable time
out of their schedule hence, agreed time limitation was used in an efficient manner. For
these reasons we mentioned above our qualitative findings will be limited to the
responses of entrepreneurs in the limited areas of the globe.
3.4 Ethical Considerations
"The research process creates tension between the aims of research to make
generalizations for the good of others, and the rights of participants to maintain privacy"
(Orb et al., 2000). As Mann noted and summarized in three simple questions; "(1) Are
we seeking to magnify the good? (2) Are we acting in ways that do not harm other? (3)
Do we recognize the autonomy others and acknowledge that they are of equal worth to
ourselves and should be treated so?" (Mann, 2002, cited in Denzin and Lincoln, 2005).
30
Any possible harmful effects of the interview can be prevented through the adaptation
of right ethical principles. Sensitive topics, illegal/taboo subjects and embarrassing
information must be pursued and handled more sensitively (Sommer and Sommer,
1997). Failure of care on ethical issues and lack of respect to the participants lowers the
success rate of research projects.
In interviews, interviewees might abstain from saying things that will offend others
(Sommer and Sommer, 1997). "These are called socially-desirable responses-statements
that fit social norms or are modified according to what the respondent thinks the
interviewer wants to hear (Sommer and Sommer, 1997). From an ethical point of view,
the interviewee's sensibility must be respected. So, it is of paramount importance to
conduct interviews to convey to the respondent that you want them to state their
opinions freely and that their statements will be kept confidential (Sommer and
Sommer, 1997).
All participants were enlightened before the interview session regarding the aim of the
research plus how data will be used. The ethics of qualitative research entail providing
feedback to the respondents regarding the nature, purposes, and intent of the research
project (Sommer and Sommer, 1997). Since we spent the entrepreneurs' valuable time,
as a matter of courtesy we appreciated all the volunteer entrepreneurs' cooperation and
time. Also, for transcription and thematic analysis purposes, interviews were recorded
with the participants' consent.
3.5 Limitations of the Study
There are several limitations in the methodology of this research, including but not
limited to the sampling decisions, interview technique, coding errors, and the general
limitations of semi-structured interview-based qualitative research studies. Even though
no research method is free from interpretation, the interview method is more open to
bias than other research methods and personal bias can threaten the whole interview
process (Sommer and Sommer, 1997). Human interaction in the interview process may
inadvertently encourage or discourage the expression of particular facts and opinions
31
(Sommer and Sommer, 1997). This does not mean that bias is inevitable; rather, great
care in building up the question format and in training interviewers is necessary if valid
information is to be gained (Sommer and Sommer, 1997).
Furthermore, since the communication is between an interviewer and interviewee, even
the tone of voice can influence the interpretation of the discussion. Findings do not
speak for themselves, must be interpreted and in this process of interpretation there is
ample room for questionable judgment calls and flat-out mistakes (Ruane, 2005).
Extensive paraphrasing, physical looks, and even gender may trigger errors and biases
in research. Instead of a verbatim transcript the interviewer can paraphrase what the
respondent meant. Extensive paraphrasing by an inexperienced interviewer is risky and
might cause some errors (Sommer and Sommer, 1997). What is more, when conducting
interviews outside the UK, factors such as conducting the interview in a non-native
tongue of the interviewee, may limit the vocabulary used to answer our questions. The
interviewee's vocabulary might be enough but a lack of breadth of vocabulary can limit
the expansion and deepening of the questions the semi-structured interview seeks to
achieve. This situation might cause contextual problems. Additionally, a semistructured interview is very demanding in terms of time. In this kind of interview, the
interviewee is allowed to answer freely about anything that they consider important in
connection with the question. So the need for interview practice training coupled with
the time-consuming aspects of an interview generate economic disadvantage (Sommer
and Sommer, 1997). Also, contextual limitations may exist and there may be some risk
of focusing less time on crucial topics.
Also, the coding procedure of the open-ended questions used in semi structured
interviews is time-consuming and also quite expensive as well (Sommer and Sommer,
1997). Since the information gathered in interviews is limited to the spoken content
(emotional context) and to reasoning made by the interviewer (Sommer and Sommer,
1997), a special software package was used to be able to isolate external sounds that
could compromise the effective gathering of interview data.
32
Finally, the field of entrepreneurship itself is another limitation of the study. As
mentioned by Shane and Venkataraman "Data are difficult to obtain, theory is
underdeveloped, and many findings to date are the same as those obtained in other areas
of business." (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000). Nevertheless, it is safe to say that the
results of our research project can be more visual if examined within these existing
limitations.
33
CHAPTER FOUR
Analysis & Discussion
4.1 Introduction
This section presents some of the findings from the semi-structured interviews. The
stories we will talk about in this research study consist of a very heterogeneous
continuum ranging from a 54 year old online furniture retailer to the eleven year old
who sold sweets and experienced business life very "first hand".
In this section, the qualitative dataset (stories) gathered from semi-structured interviews
will be thematically analysed and a thematic entrepreneurial journey map will be
created to understand the phenomenon of entrepreneurial journey in Europe.
Quotations/extracts from individual entrepreneurial stories will be used in a narrative
style to be able to visualise the journey to the readers of this research project.
To be able to analyse the results gained through the semi-structured interviews, we will
rely on the Timmon's entrepreneurial process model developed through our literature
review, which divides entrepreneurial process into three stages, these are; opportunity
discovery, evaluation and exploitation (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000).
In this research project; (1) The data-driven inductive approach was used to examine
themes which emerged from interview data (2) while latent level reasoning was chosen
for the identification of themes.
Thematic analysis was conducted in five phases (1) Being familiar with our dataset, (2)
Generating initial codes, (3) Searching for themes (4) Reviewing themes, (5) Defining
and naming themes, (6) Producing the report (Braun and Clarke, 2006).
After being familiar with the dataset the initial codes (about what is inside the dataset
and what is interesting about them) were generated (Braun and Clarke, 2006). As
recommended by Boyatzis initial codes were created which are interesting to us and can
34
be assessed in a meaningful way regarding the phenomenon (Boyatzis, 1998 cited in
Braun and Clarke, 2006).
4.2 Storytelling and Thematic Analysis
After reviewing initial codes the thematic analysis of the dataset generated ten final
themes and several sub-themes as regards the “entrepreneurial journey phenomenon”.
These are depicted in Table 4.1 below.
These themes are 1-Key incidents ignite
entrepreneurial journey spirit developed from an early age 2-European entrepreneurs
have opportunity driven entrepreneurial endeavour and mindset 3- Entrepreneurial
journey is not one person's story 4-Need for mentor or coach during entrepreneurial
Journey, 5- Having a role model during entrepreneurial journey makes the journey
smoother 6- European entrepreneurs have different success perceptions 7-Failures are
inseparable part of entrepreneurial journey 8-Similar factors enable European
entrepreneurs to make it, 9-Devising ingenious strategies is of paramount importance to
be able to make it with limited resources, 10-European Ecosystem/Environment is not
unique and does not have supportive characteristics for entrepreneurs. Table 4.1 screens
the general outline of the several themes generated from the semi-structured interview
dataset. These uncovered main themes and sub themes will be discussed in detail in this
section.
In our interviews we asked the European entrepreneurs, what their entrepreneurial
journey stories are, in order to track the process of the entrepreneurial journey in the
context of the EU. Interview questions have been particularly concerned with
understanding the process of the entrepreneurial journey in EU. Our thematic analysis
resulted in ten thematic maps.
35
Table 4.1 A Summary of the Final Themes and Sub-themes Resulting from
Interview Data
Themes
Sub Themes
1-Key incidents ignite entrepreneurial
-Entrepreneurial attitudes take shape at very early ages
journey spirit
-Job security
-Reluctance to work for somebody else
-Nothing to lose situation
2-Opportunity driven entrepreneurial
-Government policy change
endeavour and mindset
3-Entrepreneurial journey is not one
-Team working
person’s story
-Attitudes of team players
-Team combination
4-Need for mentor or coach
-Mentor’s role
5-Role model
-Growing up around entrepreneurs
-Early interest for entrepreneurship
6-Different success perceptions
-Business model
-Internationalization
-Government Funding
7-Failures are inseparable part of
-Unpredictable patterns
entrepreneurial journey
-Different failure experiences
-Failure motivation
-Learning from failures
8- Similar factors enable European
-Never giving up
entrepreneurs to make it
-Being tenacious
-Being determined
-Perseverance
-Sharing your ideas
-Having a flexible mindset and willing to change
-Building network
-Being passionate
-Setting goals
9-Devising ingenious strategies
-Limited financial resources
10-European Ecosystem/Environment
-Running business in Europe is a challenge
-EU environment is not very supportive
-Less driven entrepreneurs
-High tax rates
-Different countries have different peculiarities
-EU ecosystem is quite far behind America
36
4.2.1- Key incidents ignite entrepreneurial journey spirit developed from an early
age
From the entrepreneurs interviewed, it is clear that key decision-making incidents in the
life of an entrepreneur play an important role and help them take brave entrepreneurial
decisions at some point in their career. What is more, the fact is that in most cases
entrepreneurial attitudes take shape at a very early age. One young interviewee
emphasised the key incident for his entrepreneurial journey decision by saying: "The
key incident for my entrepreneurial decision was, either my family or close friends were
at the risk of losing their jobs. There was such a lack of security. Nowadays I don’t need
job security." This young man’s early entrepreneurial story represents a good example
how European entrepreneurs start their entrepreneurial journey at different points in
their career. In order to visualise the entrepreneurial journey, the stories of these
entrepreneurs will be revealed in the following paragraphs.
This 19 year old entrepreneur continued telling his story; he actually set up his first
business (a mobile sweet shop) at the age of eleven. The reason behind this was he
suffered from racism when he was at secondary school. And the way he escaped from
the racism was to hand out free sweets in the playground to make (buy) friends. He
literally used to buy friends using the money that his parents gave him to buy his lunch,
£2 - 2.50. He used to take that money to the local shop to buy chips and sweets like
jawbreakers, handing them out paper for free. He did this for about 3-4 weeks until the
racism. And after that he realized there was a gap in the market and started selling
sweets. There was real interest in buying the sweets, so he started selling chocolates. It
started off with pocket sweets, but in a couple of months it grew and grew and he ended
up going to school with 2-3 full shoulder bags of sweets and made over a thousand
pounds. He showed his awareness of entrepreneurial opportunities at a very early age.
At 11 years old he was able to prove to himself that he was capable of doing something
in a phenomenal way. By fourteen he was part of the local enterprise scheme which is
kind of organisation that students can join through the school and actually set up a
business. He was selected as a managing director and twelve of the students set up a
branded clothing company. They invested £350 in different t-shirts and tried to sell
37
them to the mass market. They actually ended up with a loss with that business and they
made a decision to enter the personalisation, embroidery, clothing printing and gifts
market.
Another interviewee, who grew up in Spain, had been employed in many different jobs
from beauty salon to babysitting, when she realised that employment was not for her.
She said, "So it was necessary based because I was unemployed for 14 months and I
had to make my own job really." But if we look at the rest of her entrepreneurial journey
story we can see the key incident and opportunity realisation. When she was nineteen
years old, the property market crashed and her family had no choice but to move, so she
left college and returned to the UK with nothing more than a fiver and a suitcase. Then
all of a sudden she thought there were not enough resources and help for young people
to learn skills to become an entrepreneur, so she started her business teaching
entrepreneurial skills. She decided to create a programme helping young people learn
entrepreneurial, personal development and life skills. She then went out and interviewed
some top entrepreneurs in the country including one of the top businesswomen in
Europe to get some insight. Her business is all about helping other young people start
their own businesses. She runs training programmes to help young people do this and
created the content and materials of the programme called The 12 Steps to Success. 12
Step Programme interviews, videos, workbooks and suggested readings are all aimed at
any young person under 25.
Another entrepreneur added: "It was opportunity based but no incidents I just felt like
it." When her business partner heard this response, approached us and said, "She is the
most driven person I have ever met". But the key incident lies in the rest of the story,
that is, she completed twelve months internship at two different investment banking
companies when she thought she wanted to be a banker. Although she did not find it
very attractive due to the long hours and hard work. She then went to a London-based
management consulting company, working on several banking projects. At that point,
she still thought she wanted to work in finance but eventually she was made to work on
an NHS project. She had not wanted to work on and NHS project but ended up really
enjoying it. When she was working she spoke to many doctors. She was teaching GP's
38
(doctors) how to run a practice cost effectively. Because there were lots of inefficiencies
in the NHS, many things had to change. For example, she heard many complaints about
how much was being expended on temporary doctors, how difficult it was to find and
organise them. She started thinking about other industries and how they solved this
problem, realizing that they mostly made use of online directories and contact lists. She
decided to build an NHS equivalent, then decided to stop being a management
consultant and started to work for the NHS in order to be able to understand it from the
inside. Although she had rather reluctantly started working for the NHS, it turned out to
be the igniter of her entrepreneurial journey. After working for the NHS for some time
she decided to create her first venture in the health sector. She thought she could run the
risk because she had neither mortgage nor children. She thought it’s now or never. It
was not as if she thought she was starting up a proper business, it just sort of happened.
It was just a side project for a while and then it became more real and she had the
money. She is about to close the second round of funding, some of which she won from
a TV programme, Angel. After then she got more interest from other people.
Another entrepreneur, a 22 year old Anglo-Moroccan (a Moroccan father and English
mother) fashion industry entrepreneur has a great story as well. She was born in
Morocco moving to Spain at the age of 8, and lived there around 11 years. When she
was 10 she started creating different activities with her twin sister and cousins. She used
to buy and sell sweets. Then at the age of 18 all of a sudden she realized that she could
do something different. She wanted to work in the fashion industry and also wanted to
learn its business side as well, so, at the age of eighteen, decided to move to the UK.
She started to study a business and retail management degree in a prestigious UK
university, joining the Entrepreneur Society there. At that time the society was just
under £600 in debt. As an entrepreneur society team they decided to create something
different to raise money. They started selling coffee, sandwiches and donuts on campus.
They managed to raise enough to cover the £600 debt which gave them the opportunity
to create bigger events and activities. Then in her final year of university she took over
the Entrepreneur Society, and started creating big events, bigger workshops and
different projects for students. During this time she continued to work for two very
well-known luxury fashion companies in London. While doing so in 2010 she realised
39
that it was not as challenging as she had hoped but decided she wanted to do something
in fashion but in her own way. She first wanted to start a high street fashion brand, but
then started thinking about creating something different that all customers would want
to buy. In 2011 she started her own fashion company specializing in reversible blazers.
She simply says you buy two in one. She went to Morocco and talked to a number of
tailors regarding the project. She designs the blazers and sends the designs to tailors in
Morocco. She took advantage of her work experience regarding where to buy the fabric
etc. Basically she is in the whole process of her own business. She took her designs to
different events and got some feedback. She expressed her key incident for the
entrepreneurial journey decision as, "I used to work for a fashion company in London, it
was a great experience and I learned a lot. I worked with great team. But It was not like
something that made me want to jump out of bed in the morning. I realized that I wasn’t
doing anything different, I was not changing anything. Then I realized that I wanted to
do something different."
Another interviewee, a 54 year-old Briton educated up to a level, started his own
business 35 years ago. He has tried various ventures over his business career. He started
in a small family business, which used to repair and upholster office chairs. He did not
like that business so he started to look for opportunities. At the age of 19, a relative in
the USA introduced him to a colleague who was manufacturing seating for
entertainment venues like pop concert arenas. The company was not exporting much
and it was agreed that he would try to sell their products in the UK. It took him almost a
year to win his first order. After 3 years of focusing on this seating he decided to widen
his offering because he felt vulnerable. He was relying on just one supplier and if they
went bust or if they fired him, his business would collapse. He visited trade fairs
looking for new opportunities and found a range of furniture being manufactured in
Italy for restaurants. In 2011 he started an online furniture shop to be able to reach more
customers located in different geographic locations.
All these stories have certain things in common. First of all the connection of the
“presence of lucrative opportunities and the presence of enterprising individuals”
(Shane and Venkataraman, 2000) in all five entrepreneurial stories. The “alertness to
40
entrepreneurial opportunities and day-to-day knowledge go hand-in-hand” situation so
that opportunities are discovered by the entrepreneurs is clear (Dutta and Crossan,
2005). These entrepreneurial stories also point out the reluctance of the European
entrepreneurs to work for somebody else. They mostly believe that in another company
eventually their responsibility and creativity would be limited. As nicely stated by one
of the respondents, European entrepreneurs are looking for something that makes their
ordinary days more exciting and makes them want to out of the bed in the morning.
Another common point we noticed in these stories is the ‘nothing to lose situation’.
Some entrepreneurs emphasise that lack of children or being too young are used as
fundamental conditions that ease the entrepreneurial venture decision.
4.2.2-
European
entrepreneurs
have
opportunity
driven
entrepreneurial
endeavour and mindset
From the interviews it was evident that all of the respondents felt that their
entrepreneurial
journeys
were
opportunity-driven.
For
one
respondent
the
entrepreneurial journey started off as a necessary thing but then he saw the opportunity
and started to sell sweets at the age of eleven: this young entrepreneur stated: "I think
there is a mix. From my childhood on I don’t think I realized that this will become a
profitable business. It started off as a necessary thing but then I saw the opportunity
and started to sell sweets, it was a mix I think my current business and all my businesses
at the moment are opportunity based."
This, opportunity-driven nature of EU entrepreneurial journeys is in line with findings
of Reynolds et al. who emphasized the prevalence of opportunity driven
entrepreneurship in high level income countries (Reynolds et al., 2002 cited in Bhola et
al, 2006). In all these stories we have mentioned above, in accordance with the
Kirznerian view, entrepreneurs are essentially concerned with restoring balance in the
economy by embarking on entrepreneurial opportunities that arise out of knowledge and
of information asymmetries among its constituents (Dutta and Crossan, 2005). The
decision to become self-employed of our respondents stemmed from pull effects
induced by a growing economy creating entrepreneurial opportunities. Among the five
41
European entrepreneur interviewees, four out of five opportunities were created by a
growing economy, only one of the entrepreneurial journey opportunities arose due to a
government policy change.
Because the new UK government health bill gave
significant more power to the GP's, they became important paying customers. The
health bill increased the GP locum market 20% overnight. This policy-related change
(the government health bill announcement) created opportunity and this opportunity
was spotted by one of our young entrepreneur interviewees.
4.2.3- The entrepreneurial journey is not one person's story
The interviewees were asked how they developed the right team for the future success
of the firm in terms of personal attributes or attitudes of key personnel or employees.
Most of the entrepreneurs responded that they believe in the importance of team
working. The main role of the entrepreneur is to harmonise the right people in a rapidly
changing business environment, as nicely noted by one respondent, "Your team is
critical and my business only grew significantly when I had the right people in place.
Do not compromise on staff and make sure that everyone really cares about what they
do and about the business. If the staff doesn’t care the business will fail."
Another emphasised a similar attitude, noting, "I have seen a lot of people saying I did
everything by myself. I am not a believer of this. It is all about the attitude. Any sort of
employee or partner, skills, perseverance, determination and passion. I am a big
believer in attitude."
Another respondent considered her suppliers as a part of her team and emphasised the
passion of her supplier/tailor who had 55 years’ experience. Before choosing this
passionate supplier she went out and talked to five different suppliers. She chose him
because she believed that a team player full of passion had the necessary characteristics
that she wanted and it was important for her.
Our thematic analysis findings indicate that European entrepreneurs are like a
symphony conductor as Timmons and Spinelli noted, they have to balance a group of
42
diversified people with different skills and attitudes into a superb team (Timmons and
Spinelli, 2007).
4.2.4- Need for mentor or coach during entrepreneurial Journey
From the interviews it is plain that a decent mentor is an inseparable and critical
component of the European entrepreneurs' long journeys. European entrepreneurs
usually need diversified mentors for different phases of the journey. An important point
is that the mentors' role is limited to guidance and perspective, they do not make
operational or managerial decisions on the entrepreneurs’ behalf.
Thematic analysis of the qualitative data revealed the reality that entrepreneurs consider
the "supporters", especially the mentors, to have been key to their success in their
entrepreneurial journey. Easy access to a dedicated supporter who offers some
encouragement, advice and serves as a measure of its effectiveness and acceptability is
crucial.
The third theme (Need for mentor or coach) identified by European entrepreneurs is
best depicted by the following response of one UK entrepreneur who highlighted the
increasing need of mentoring due to the many discouraging factors in the market place.
She highlights the lack of particular mentors at some points in her entrepreneurial
journey.
"At the beginning I met lot of people at a London based management consulting firm
but actually they were not useful at all. They were very wise and asked lots of questions
but by nature they were not risk takers, they were like ... don't do that, ... don't do that,
that is very risky and I thought that is not very helpful. Then I started to go to other
entrepreneurs, they were much helpful. Then I met Jamie who is an entrepreneur
himself. I met him through a friend. I wanted to give up but something good happened.
When I met Jamie, I was going to give up but he said carry on. He wanted to mentor me
and sort of help me how to start business. And after a few months he wanted to invest in
me and he gave me enough money to build the website. Then at some points on my
43
journey I contacted with people who have started businesses in the past and I just asked
... can we go and get a coffee and just asked my ideas. Industry experts are not very
good when it comes to advice how to run a business. They knew the topic very well but
they don't know how to exploit opportunities."
Simply, European entrepreneurs need someone who can observe the ongoing process of
business from the outside in an independent way. As well depicted by one of the
entrepreneurs, "If you are an entrepreneur you need a mentor you need someone who
can look at the business from the outside, listen this is how it is going to be ... sometimes
a mentor gives you some encouragement. Sometimes even clients help you and even
serve you as a mentor..."
Another respondent added: "Mentoring from my first financier really helped me that
was the main one in the beginning, now I have various people around me and I can just
ring up. Knowing the people are there if you need them helps you overcome a
challenge. It is important to have people around you that can help."
Another young entrepreneur added, "I had some mentors and friends who gave some
comments that were really important for my journey. Sometimes you are stuck in a
position and you can't decide which path you take. Then having a mentor makes it easy
to decide."
All these responses reflect the importance of mentors and/or coaches. As we can see
from the quotations above, relationships with mentors start with minimal content
exchange such as advice and suggestions on start-up problems. After a while content
exchange increases and the type of mentor/coach diversifies.
4.2.5-Having a role model during the entrepreneurial journey makes the journey
smoother
Our thematic analysis revealed another important fact about entrepreneurial journey
phenomenon in the EU, namely, that growing up around entrepreneurs has a huge
44
influence on entrepreneurial decisions in terms of having an interest in entrepreneurship
from an early age. Three of the interviewees grew up around entrepreneurs which
benignly influenced their entrepreneurial journey decisions.
One respondent followed her mother and grandfather's footsteps, saying, "My mom is
my business partner, my mom and my grandfather always had their own businesses so I
have grown up watching my mother and grandfather run their own businesses so I
guess it has always been in my blood to work for myself. So I feel lucky." but she also
emphasized that growing up among entrepreneurs is not a necessary precondition of
becoming one yourself adding, "I don't think it is necessary to have entrepreneur
parents but it is going to have influence on you, someone like me growing up around
entrepreneurs."
Another one added "My father was a good influence on me. He was experienced in
trading and was able to offer advice. I also took advice from my accountant who helped
me structure my businesses in a tax efficient way."
Another informed us that, "My two parents are both entrepreneurs. I believe my interest
to entrepreneurship came from them. Also when I came to university I was part of
entrepreneur society. Also I believe working with a great team, energetic, positive,
inspired and passionate, make me pursue my entrepreneurial interest even harder."
One of our respondents is the first entrepreneur in his entire family. He said that, "If you
are coming from Indian background it is very much you go to college, you go to
university and you get your degree and you get a job, that is generally how it happens. I
still have problems with my family when discussing business and dealing with this
issues."
On the other hand one respondent strongly emphasised the unconditionality of
entrepreneurship by saying "It wasn't necessarily that I was inspired by anyone. I wasn't
inspired by people who I worked for. I didn't really want to be any of the people who
were my seniors so I thought like I don't want to be here. I hate being told to do. I
45
looked at my bosses and said I don't really want to be you. I don't want to be like you.
So that was more like a push rather than inspired by anyone. I didn't want to be in a
company."
As is easily seen from the quotations above, when talking about the impact of a role
model during the entrepreneurial journey, all the interviewees agreed that growing up
with entrepreneurial role models is not a necessity but having some such role models
from an early age definitely has a positive influence.
4.2.6- European entrepreneurs have different success perceptions
In order to find out the perceptions of success among our European entrepreneurs the
interviewees were asked what their greatest entrepreneurial success was. Thematic
analysis of the responses indicates that European entrepreneurs evaluate different things
as their greatest entrepreneurial success. One emphasised the importance of the business
model saying, "We got lots of sales associate. We are the only one in this business with
this franchise sales associates. We are the only one in the business recruiting only the
students as sales associates. This sales associate training gives them a great kick start
in their career, sales, marketing that sort of area." Another puts the emphasis on
internalization by saying that, "My greatest entrepreneurial success is setting up in the
USA." Another stresses getting external funding as his/her greatest entrepreneurial
success saying, "It would be getting government funding for the training program for
every 16-18 years old in England." One was a bit pessimistic about using the word of
success yet by saying "Greatest entrepreneurial success, I don't know it is success yet,
this is my only entrepreneurial venture." Another respondent considers her fashion
brand as her greatest entrepreneurial success. Because she thinks that she did manage to
do something different.
4.2.7- Failures are an inseparable part of entrepreneurial journey
As nicely described by our respondents, the entrepreneurial journey is not a predictable
pattern of business activities. If you want to start an entrepreneurial journey, you have
46
to be open to unpredictable surprises including failures. As well stated by one of the
respondents "Very good days and very bad days happen to anyone. That makes me even
stronger. When I fail I realise what was wrong, after I do it even better.”
One respondent considered that being a control freak was his first failure, "it was just
the beginning stage and it was very difficult to allow anybody to do anything in the
business, I was like macro manager and people became demotivated. I should have
delegated, but I was only fourteen."
As nicely stated by this young entrepreneur, the total freedom of taking all the critical
decisions and keeping all the strings under control does not attract European
entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs in the EU do like to delegate tasks and do not want to be
in charge and be familiar with everything in the company.
Another respondent added, "I run out money quite quickly. I spent too much money on
web development. And after that 6 months no web development. I spent my first round
money on a web contractor. He got £400 a day but he was so slow and so expensive. I
spent all my money on him and that wasn't very good. It was mainly tech development I
failed because I didn't really know what I was doing. Sort of really didn't budget. I spent
ages to find right web developer. No one would work for free. Basically it is like finding
somebody who is just willing to take a chance on me. He was very good but he was
trying to take a chance on me. I was sort of looking for a sales person. But I couldn't
really find the right person."
A fashion entrepreneur added, "I have tried various ventures over my business career
such as an on-line interior design directory during the dot com boom. This venture did
not make money and I shut it down. It is important to try ventures if you think there is
an opportunity. Nobody can get it right all of the time but you have to try what you
believe in."
Another respondent started her first business (custom made jeans) when she was fifteen,
that was her first entrepreneurial experience and also her first failure. It taught her a
47
great deal and allowed her to succeed the second time round. And she added "Failure is
obviously not a good feeling. I believe everything happens for a reason. If you do not
fail how you going to know how to do something the right way. You learn from your
failures and you do it in a right way next time. So it is a good thing. In my current
venture failure was not an option, I had to get out and make sure it worked." In this
young person’s story there was not any room for failure as she wanted to make sure it
worked out. As we can see from the quotations above, all the entrepreneurial journeys
include some sort of failures which they learned. What they did not do is allow failure
to destroy their dreams.
4.2.8- Similar factors enable European entrepreneurs to make it
Thematic analysis of interview data disclosed the fact that generally entrepreneurs in the
EU consider similar factors that create entrepreneurial success and failure. Most of the
respondents rely on these factors in order to make it on their entrepreneurial journey,
including: never giving up, being tenacious and being determined. One of the
respondents emphasised the importance of perseverance and added "Business is not very
easy though, you do have the problems of falling over. And thing can go extremely
wrong and you need to have the ability to get up and you need the determination and
every time you get up you need to bring vision and perseverance again. I am going to
do this whatever the case. You have that sort of attitude towards business. You just keep
going. At the end of the day as long as you enjoy your passion and that business can be
done very well." and continued by saying "I suffered from racism. I was capable of
turning negative incidents that would normally depress someone, found a way to
convert them to positive energy. Every time something bad happens I need to tell myself
I can’t let this get me down but need to use it to make me even stronger, I really really
use this energy to boost my business to help myself. Really really try, not easy, sleepless
nights, would they rather do a job they hate or would they rather do a job they love,
people need to find out who they are first. Hard work will pay off definitely." Another
respondent added "Quite tenacious, sort of don't give up, just keep pushing pushing all
the time even if it is annoying."
48
Another important factors related to the characteristics of the entrepreneur is “sharing
your ideas”. As Dutta and Crossan noted individual interpretation can be strengthened
by sharing it with others who can then take a role in collective exploration,
interpretation, and integration of the entrepreneurial concept, to transform it into a
common understanding of a doable business concept (Dutta and Crossan, 2005). One
respondent nicely said "A lot of people said to me that they look at me as one of the best
leaders they have ever seen, listening to people, bringing them together, in terms of
directing people forward with vision. I think there are too many leaders out there, they
do see the vision but they don’t share with the people around them. They keep it to
themselves, they want everything. I think to share the vision and make them believe the
vision is important." Another respondent added “Also don’t be afraid to share your
ideas with people. Because some people are scared that people going to steal their
ideas."
Having a flexible mindset and being willing to change the model is a necessity on the
road of the entrepreneurial journey and entrepreneurs must be prepared accordingly.
One of the respondents said convincingly, "Don't stick to something, if you think that
you know the answer, you got to be really attentive to everything around you. You got to
be very flexible, willing to change things, otherwise you might just fail." Another
respondent added, "Be prepared for early failures before your venture succeeds, it
rarely goes exactly to plan."
Building networks is another important factor. One respondent well expressed the
importance of networking, "Another important thing is building a network around you,
people who can help you. Anytime you want to give up, if you have the right people
around you they encourage you. If you purposely surrounded with people who stop you
giving up then it helps."
Being passionate is another important factor that we have discovered. One of the
respondents expressed this view, saying, “Finding your life purpose, what you love
doing, how you make money doing it. Having lots of passion. Have you got a hobby
49
when you have spare time. Make sure it’s something you love because it is the passion
that will make you rich at the end of the day, not doing something you hate."
Setting goals is another crucially important factor. According to one respondent, a goal
without a date is only a wish and an entrepreneur needs to have the vision, where the
end goal is.
As stated in Timmons’ Entrepreneurial Process Model, creativity, communication, and
leadership moderate the strength of the model components and increase the likelihood
of venture success (Spinelli et al., 2006 cited in Minniti et al., 2006). We can see this
relationship in the quotations above. To sum up, our findings emphasise the fact that
European entrepreneurs share certain characteristics which construct a particular
identity for European entrepreneurs.
4.2.9- Devising ingenious strategies is of paramount importance to be able to make
it with limited resources
All our respondents emphasised the fact that they all started their journey with some
difficulties especially limited financial resources. Financial resources are of paramount
importance and most of the respondents look at cash flow as a basic criteria of
maintainability of business. One respondent started her entrepreneurial journey with her
own money then she started to sell her products in one of the famous London markets to
be able to survive. One respondent summarised his journey in terms of limited
resources, "It has been done on a shoestring. Raising money was quite hard. I
eventually got a small fund from two different sources and then the bank. You’re never
going to have everything you need to start a business. Even if you have lots of money
and a great team there is always going to be something you need. You do have to make
most out of it."
This theme is best illustrated by the following response of one entrepreneur who
highlighted the importance of ingenious strategies to be able to succeed with limited
resources, "There was one doctor who had a Facebook group and a thousand doctors
50
signed up to it. I really wanted to advertise on his group but he was asking for
thousands of pounds as an advertising fee, instead I organised an event and I asked him
to speak at the event because I knew if he is the speaker he would advertise the event on
the group. So I did it that way and I didn't pay any money. You just have to think of
ways not to spend money, flattering people gets you quick. After 10 months positive
cash flow." As we can clearly notice in this story, the entrepreneurial journey requires a
tight rein on one’s resources and an ability to think outside of the box (Timmons and
Spinelli, 2007).
One respondent created an ingenious business model and did not need funding in the
first phase of journey. He said, "I didn’t actually require capital in the first place.
Because all I really require is to go out and talk to the people, I was getting a profit
from day one." Another respondent stated "I started with a family loan and was cash
positive quite quickly. It is important to keep overheads to a bare minimum. I am
attracted to opportunities that offer good margins so cash is generated quickly. It is
also important to have strict credit control. We insure all our debts and the insurance
company sets credit limits. If the customer cannot meet our insurers credit rating then
they have to pay in advance, which is good for cash flow."
All the respondents show that the entrepreneurial journey requires creative/efficient use
of resources because resource bases enable firms to survive the consequences of bad
decisions and environmental impacts (Hanlon and Saunders, 2007). The Resource
Based View requires social activity and interaction and gives a key social role to the
entrepreneur as an assembler and neat organiser of resources (Hanlon and Saunders,
2007). In the examples above, we can see the active interaction of our respondents as
organizers of available resources.
4.2.10- The European Ecosystem/Environment is not unique and does lacks some
supportive characteristics for entrepreneurs
Even though the EU has many entrepreneurial success stories, our thematic analysis
revealed the fact that, as the largest and wealthiest single market, the European Union
51
does not offer great advantages to entrepreneurs starting businesses. All respondents
except one stated that running a business in Europe is a real challenge in terms of tax
rates, employment law, and the so-called “legislative burden.” One respondent
mentioned that the EU entrepreneurial ecosystem lacks personal development and life
skills-related policies.
One respondent pointed out the tax burden in the UK by saying, "In terms of the way I
look at it, every sale 30-40 percent I need to pay to the government. That is why it is
hard to expanding. This might be the case in a lot of developed countries. That is why a
lot of businesses do go out." One international entrepreneur described the general
environment of the EU: "Every country I trade in has different tastes and peculiarities.
For example Germany is very precise in its taste and requirements. The EU generally is
quite difficult to trade with because there is so much legislation that is quite a burden to
trade. One of the biggest barriers to trade in the EU is employment law, which makes it
very risky to take on employees because it is so difficult to dismiss staff after a
qualifying period. In my opinion this is the single biggest obstacle to trade within the
EU". Another young entrepreneur summarised the situation in Spain, “It is probably
impossible doing business in Spain, you have to take half the day off, 50 percent
unemployment among young people. We need to give more opportunities to young
people and making them aware of other opportunities."
One interviewee has a different point of view regarding countries' ecosystem
comparison point; she said, "All entrepreneurs have a lot in common. One of our
mentors, she own a business called Entrepreneur-country because she thinks
entrepreneurs live in a different country. Living in the same kind of world. Someone that
has been employed for 50 years and never run a business doesn't live in the same world
as an entrepreneur."
But there are a couple of good points regarding the EU ecosystem and environment; one
admitted, "The EU is relatively good because there are no duties and tariffs between
member states and low levels of corruption especially in northern countries within the
EU." Another respondent made some positive comments regarding the United Kingdom
52
environmental ecosystem and some negative comments about the Spanish
entrepreneurial environment, "I know Spain and the UK from my experience. There are
lots of opportunities in UK. I don't believe there are any obstacles for anyone who starts
to business in UK. The government is supporting so much. In Spain, entrepreneurship is
just being spoken. Before it was not really supported. There are some obstacles there, if
you have the idea you might not know who to contact, how to get resources."
Nearly all interviewees compared the EU ecosystem with the United States and they all
agreed on the fact that the Europe ecosystem/environment is quite far behind America.
Two respondents in particular clearly complained about the less driven nature of
European entrepreneurs. One compared the EU ecosystem with Asia and Africa and
said, "Entrepreneurs in countries such as Asia, Africa, they are more driven, they are a
lot more motivated, a lot more determined, and they probably do better. Like India
ecosystem, they need to be, very difficult to say but EU entrepreneurs are not unique I
think. EU entrepreneurs are unique in the fact that they probably have less driven
motivation, there is not much drive for European entrepreneurs." Another respondent
did the comparison with United States and said that "In Europe you have to be really
more driven than America. All my friends in America says it is easier to get funding, it
is easier to find mentors, it is easier to communicate with people, even much more open
to failure. In the UK there are many entrepreneurs in the first place “Alien”. It is really
hard to get money if you haven't got a track record of success or whatever. You got to
try harder to succeed. The UK is not attractive enough. It is getting better but not like
San Francisco. My first funding was fine but it was only small amount (£25,000). Last
summer I tried to raise money another round I spent 3 months going back and forth this
particular VC, they were all meeting me, meeting me, 8 meetings, at the end they said
oh no."
Although there were some interviewees that made some positive statements about the
European ecosystem, the clear pattern seen in the data was that the European
entrepreneurial ecosystem has some obstacles for entrepreneurs and it is not very
supportive compared to the United States. As one respondent nicely phrased it, "From
my personal experience the USA is the most fertile business environment."
53
From the stories above, we can clearly see that entrepreneurs might face numerous
challenges along the journey. Most entrepreneurs go into business with limited
resources hoping to get more capital once the business grows. Having no remarkable
‘track record’ makes it hard to reach public resources for new and nascent
entrepreneurs. And all of these unyielding challenges require the cooperation and
strategic interaction of individuals and groups (Aldrich and Fiol, 1994). The main role
of the lead entrepreneur and the team is to harmonise all of the crucial components in a
rapidly changing European entrepreneurial environment (Spinelli et al., 2006 cited in
Minniti et al., 2006). But there is no room for the entrepreneur and his dependence on
optimisation calculations (Baumol, 1993). In the context of European entrepreneurial
journey, an entrepreneur could easily drown. All they can do is to find out more
innovative ideas to overcome these challenges.
54
CHAPTER FIVE
Conclusion
This paper has examined the entrepreneurial journey within the European context, based
on in-depth semi-structured interviews with a sample of five entrepreneurs. In this
research, we have attempted to answer the questions: What is the entrepreneurial
journey in the context of the EU entrepreneurial ecosystem/environment? What kind of
challenges do European entrepreneurs face along the way and how do they overcome
them? What makes EU entrepreneurs unique in their entrepreneurial journey?
Timmons’ Entrepreneurial Process Model was used to analyse the process of the
entrepreneurial journey through the use of the narrative method and thematic analysis in
order to make sense of the entrepreneurial journey in the actual lives of the respondents.
Also "in order to understand the meanings attached to these stories it also became
important to analyse them in their contextual settings, meaning both the individually
constructed personal setting and the general economic and social environment that
marks the larger scenery for all enterprises." (Hytti, 2003). The entrepreneurial journeys
consisted of a series of European entrepreneurs’ autonomous, innovative, and
improvised actions seen in the discussion and analysis section in detail. Several
common elements in the five EU entrepreneurial stories were discernable. Our findings
indicate that entrepreneurial intentions and journeys start at an early age and do not stop
there. Being reluctant to work for somebody else and several key incidents ignite their
entrepreneurial spirit towards brave entrepreneurial decisions. Key aspects of the
entrepreneurial journey process are being determined, establishing the right team and
finding ingenious strategies to be able to succeed with limited resources. The
entrepreneurial journey in Europe takes a huge of effort and is full of challenges
especially in the start-up phase. In this challenging journey European entrepreneurs are
trying to transform potential opportunity into business reality with other team members.
Entrepreneurs in the EU do like to delegate the tasks and do not want to be alone in this
long journey. All the entrepreneurial stories include some mistakes and failures that
they learned from but they keep going to be able to complete the journey successfully.
Our entrepreneur respondents engaged in several strategies to secure themselves and to
downplay the risks associated with their venture. Also the ‘nothing to lose’ situation is
55
evident in some stories as well. But the reality is that there is no safety net for European
entrepreneurs and accepting the possibility of failure can lead to more exciting and
brave entrepreneurial journeys.
European entrepreneurs face difficult challenges. To overcome them the EU
entrepreneurs use various strategies. Once they face challenges they do not runaway.
Contrary to expectations, challenges along the journey stimulate them, make them
stronger and make it easier for them to overcome difficulties in the next phases of the
entrepreneurial journey. At this point access to a dedicated mentor within easy reach
who offers some encouragement and advice becomes pivotal. One of the most
important common points in five different stories is that it is possible to make the
entrepreneurial journey smoother through mentoring. The mentor can also provide
tremendous advantageous which has proved to be the case with most of the
entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs need to make their own critical decisions but it is possible
to weigh some of the issues with another knowledgeable entrepreneur or mentor who
can make things clear that the new entrepreneur has not noticed in the rush of the daily
business life. Also nascent entrepreneur’s time is consumed by the day-to-day work of
the business in the start-up phase. In Europe, as we noticed in our stories of five
entrepreneurs, the need for nascent entrepreneurs to have a mentor is increasingly
becoming a mode of behaviour or entrepreneurial philosophy.
A key finding from the interview data is the fact that Europe has not the most
favourable entrepreneurial environment compared to the rest of the world. During the
interviews we repeatedly heard the complaint that it is more difficult to get funding on
this side of the Atlantic Ocean. Under the circumstances there is a strong need for
entrepreneurial environment improvement as noted by our interviewees. The majority
of respondents agree on the fact that the EU needs to create a stimulating and supportive
entrepreneurial environment. As noted by respondents different European countries
have different peculiarities in terms of entrepreneurial environment. In particular, the
tax burden, employment law and legislation burden. On the other hand, there are some
good points mentioned by interviewees regarding the European entrepreneurial
environment including: no duties and tariffs between member states and a low level of
56
corruption. In addition, some positive points were made about specific countries; for
instance, one respondent noted that there are relatively fewer obstacles and more
supportive government policies for new entrepreneurs in the United Kingdom. One
respondent depicts becoming an entrepreneur in the UK as an easy issue. Most of the
respondents clearly believe that the EU entrepreneurial ecosystem is quite far behind the
United States.
Furthermore, our respondents all put an emphasis on the less driven nature of European
entrepreneurs. Our findings illustrate the fact that European entrepreneurs share certain
characteristics which construct a particular identity. What is more, growing up around
entrepreneurs definitely has a great impact on entrepreneurial decisions because it feeds
the entrepreneurial interest in the very early years of life. Three of the interviewees
grew up around entrepreneurs which had a huge influence on their entrepreneurial
journey decisions. As nicely stated by respondents growing up watching parents or
relatives run their own businesses, it made them feel that they had an entrepreneurial
spirit in their blood too. The research found that European entrepreneurs split success
into material and non-material indicators and measures. On the one hand, some
respondents emphasised the measurable financial results, while, on the other, some
entrepreneurs chose non-material measures to reckon success.
During the interviewee selection process we also aimed for heterogeneity in the
qualitative study by picking entrepreneurs with different backgrounds in order to be
able to reach diverse entrepreneurial stories. Five different entrepreneurial journey
stories have been told. In these narratives our main intention was to create a realistic
entrepreneurial journey framework in a realistic manner. Since the dataset we have
retrieved comes mostly from entrepreneurs currently located in the United Kingdom,
some were previously located in different European countries, our research findings can
be hugely useful for anyone who wishes to understand general picture of entrepreneurial
journey in Europe. More importantly, the responses of individuals reported in the
analysis and discussion section can be informative to prospective entrepreneurs as
examples of directly recommended perceptions of entrepreneurs.
57
The study makes several contributions. Among them, first, the study provides an
organising framework for examining the entrepreneurial journey in a more systematic
fashion. We believe that the general picture of the whole entrepreneurial process
gathered from five entrepreneurial stories represents an important step towards
understanding how and why entrepreneurs choose to exploit opportunities and what
kind of challenges they face and how they overcome these obstacles. Because, so far,
the entrepreneurial journey has not been systematically studied. Second, based on the
Timmons’ Entrepreneurial Process Model, support was found for the proposition that
the entrepreneurs' journey requires tight control of the available resources, as well as
being creative and ingenious (Timmons and Spinelli, 2007). Also, our findings are
consistent with Timmons’ proposal which states "the process of opportunity
identification, evaluation, and exploitation must be balanced by resource acquisition and
team development." (Spinelli et al., 2006 cited in Minniti et al., 2006). These findings
are important because they serve to demonstrate empirically a suggestion that has been
implied but understudied in the entrepreneurship literature. Third, the study provides
plenty of evidence of the important factors valued by entrepreneurs during the
entrepreneurial journey. Although the acquisition of financial resources and other
tangible assets is undoubtedly crucial to the ventures, in comparison to these more
tangible resources, entrepreneurs seem to require relatively massive amounts of
intangible assistance in a broad variety of forms. In particular, the importance of mentor
and coach support, which has been mentioned but not demonstrated in the
entrepreneurship literature, has been shown to play an important role during
entrepreneurial journey. A fourth contribution of the study is to highlight the current
European entrepreneurial environment perceptions. Fifth, by using the storytelling
method, we articulated "how the entrepreneur makes sense of what (s)he does, and how
(s)he relates to others, recognises opportunities and gains experience." (Johansson,
2004). We noted the fact that experience is a crucial ingredient in shaping
entrepreneurial journey behaviours in Europe. Sixth, we also discovered the fact that
European entrepreneurs share certain characteristics, which form a particular identity
for European entrepreneurs. Finally, we discovered the fact that it is important for a
European entrepreneur to look at negative incidents and failures in a certain way since
58
entrepreneurial journey stories are full of problems and challenges as well as success
and fun moments.
What is more, while this research paper sheds light and provides fruitful initial insights
into the entrepreneurial process, the research admittedly has a number of limitations.
Based on academic literature databases, there has not been written much research
regarding the entrepreneurial journey in the past. For this reason we have used relevant
research findings to be able to get adequate literature framework for the study. That is
why we had some difficulties regarding the linkage of main findings of our study with
the appropriate theoretical framework. During our research process, cost concerns were
a primary obstacle and for this reason the number of interviewees was limited to five
respondents. Also, the time available to carry out the research narrowed the conduct of
the research to a certain geographic area. This combined with the small sample size (5
participants) might imply that the results of this study cannot be readily generalised.
Additional research of other entrepreneurs located at different countries in Europe are
necessary to establish the generalizability of the findings across different
entrepreneurial environments. Also, the findings gathered in this qualitative research is
also based on self-reporting, hence it is raises the possibility of a potentially social
desirability response bias. There is a need for further research that includes more
diverse samples from European countries to more fully ascertain the applicability of the
entrepreneurial journey experience across different ethnic entrepreneur groups. More
entrepreneurs participating in the qualitative study would have given more insightful
data concerning the entrepreneurial journey experience. However despite all the
limitations mentioned above, our qualitative study was conducted successfully and
derived valuable data for the entrepreneurship literature.
59
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aldrich, H. E. and Fiol, C. M. (1994). ‘Fools rush in? The institutional Context of
Industry Creation’. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19, No:4, 645-670.
Alstete, J. W. (2008). ‘Aspects of Entrepreneurial Success’. Journal of Small Business
and Enterprise Development, Vol. 15 Iss: 3, 584-594.
Baumol, W. J. (1989). ‘Entrepreneurship in economic theory’. American Economic
Review Papers and Proceedings, 64-71. cited in Shane, S. and Venkataraman, S. (2000).
‘The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research’. Academy of Management
Review, 25, 217–226.
Baumol, W. (1993). ‘Formal entrepreneurship theory in economics: Existence and
bounds’. Journal of Business Venturing, 8: 197-210.
Boje, D. and Smith, R. (2010) ‘Re-storying and visualizing the changing entrepreneurial
identities of Bill Gates and Richard Branson’. Culture and Organization, Vol. 16, No. 4,
307–331.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). ‘Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic analysis and
code development’. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage cited in Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006).
‘Using thematic analysis in psychology’. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2), 77101.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006). ‘Using thematic analysis in psychology’. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3 (2), 77-101.
Brown, A., Gabriel, Y. and Gherardi, S. (2009). ‘Storytelling and change: an unfolding
story’. Organization, 16 (3), 323-333.
Bruner, J. (1986). ‘Actual Minds, Possible Words’. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, cited in Johansson, A. W. (2004). ‘Narrating the Entrepreneur’.
International Small Business Journal, 22: 273.
60
Bruyat, C. and Julien, P. A. (2001). ‘Defining the Field of Research in
Entrepreneurship’. Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 165-180.
Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2007). ‘Business Research Methods’. 2nd ed., Oxford
University Press.
Bryman, et al. (2008). ‘Quality Criteria for Quantitative, Qualitative and Mixed
Methods Research: A View from Social Policy’. Int. J. Social Research Methodology,
Vol. 11, No. 4.
Casson, M. (1982). ‘The Entrepreneur’. Totowa, NJ: Barnes & Noble Books cited in
Shane, S. and Venkataraman, S. (2000). ‘The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of
research’. Academy of Management Review, 25, 217–226.
Cha, M. S. and Bae, Z. T. (2008). ‘The entrepreneurial journey: Emergence from
entrepreneurial intent to opportunity realization’. PICMET 2008 Proceedings, 27-31
July, Cape Town, South Africa.
Cheng, Yu-ting and Ven, Andrew H. Van de (1996). ‘Learning the Innovation Journey;
Order out of Chaos?’. Organization Science, Vol 7, No 6.
Choi, Y. R. and Shepherd, D. A. (2004). ‘Entrepreneurs’ decisions to exploit
opportunities’. Journal of Management, 30, 377–95. cited in Haynie, et al. (2009) ‘An
Opportunity for Me? The Role of Resources in Opportunity Evaluation Decisions’.
Journal of Management Studies, 46:3.
Denzin, N. (1994) ‘The Art and Politics of Interpretation’ in Denzin N. and Lincoln Y.
(eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research, pp. 500–15. London: Sage cited in Stirling J.
A. (2001). ‘Thematic networks: an analytic tool for qualitative research’. Qualitative
Research, Sage Publications.
Dutta, D. K and Crossan, M. M. (2005). ‘The Nature of Entrepreneurial Opportunities:
Understanding the Process Using the 4I Organizational Learning Framework’.
Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, July 2005, 425-449.
61
Eckhardt, J. T. and Shane S. A. (2003). ‘Opportunities and Entrepreneurship’. Journal
of Management, 29(3), 333-349.
Fiol, C. M. (1989). ‘A semiotic analysis of corporate language: organizational
boundaries and joint venturing’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34: 277–303.
Hanlon, D. and Saunders, C. (2007). ‘Marshalling Resources to Form Small New
Ventures: Toward a More Holistic Understanding of Entrepreneurial Support’.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, July 2007, 619-641.
Hansen, E. L. (1995). ‘Entrepreneurial Networks and New Organization Growth’.
Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, Vol. 19, Issue 4, 7-19.
Harper, D. A. (2003). ‘Foundations of Entrepreneurship and Economic Development’.
London: Routledge cited in Dutta D. K. and Crossan M. M. (2005). ‘The Nature of
Entrepreneurial Opportunities: Understanding the Process Using the 4I Organizational
Learning Framework’. Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, July 2005, 425-449.
Haynie, J. M., Shepherd, D. A. and McMullen, J. S. (2009). ‘An Opportunity for Me?
The Role of Resources in Opportunity Evaluation Decisions’. Journal of Management
Studies, 46:3.
Hill, J., McGowan, P. and Drummond, P. (1999). ‘The development and application of
a qualitative approach to researching the marketing networks of small firm
entrepreneurs’. Qualitative Market Research, 2: 71–81.
Hoang, H. and Antoncic, B. (2003). ‘Network-based research in entrepreneurship: a
critical review’. Journal of Business Venturing, 18: 165–187.
Hytti, U. (2003). ‘Stories of Entrepreneurs: Narrative Construction of Identities’.
Publications of the Turku School of Economics and Business Administration, A:1-2003.
Jack, S. et al. (2008). ‘Change and the development of entrepreneurial networks over
time: a processual perspective’. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 125–159.
62
Johannisson, B. and Mönsted, M. (1997). ‘Contextualizing entrepreneurial networking’.
International Journal of Management and Organization, 27: 109–137.
Johansson, A. W. (2004). ‘Narrating the Entrepreneur’. International Small Business
Journal 22: 273.
Kirzner, I. M. (1963). ‘Market Theory and Price System’. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand
cited in Dutta, D. K. and Crossan, M. M. (2005). ‘The Nature of Entrepreneurial
Opportunities: Understanding the Process Using the 4I Organizational Learning
Framework’. Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, July 2005.
Kirzner, I. M. (1997). ‘Entrepreneurial Discovery and the competitive market process:
an Austrian approach’. Journal of Economic Literature, 35, 60-85. cited in Haynie, J.
M., Shepherd, D. A. and McMullen, J. S. (2009). ‘An Opportunity for Me? The Role of
Resources in Opportunity Evaluation Decisions’. Journal of Management Studies, 46:3.
Klevorick, A., Levin, R., Nelson, R. and Winter, S. (1995). ‘On the sources of
significance of interindustry differences in technological opportunities’. Research
Policy, 24: 185-205 cited in Eckhardt, J. T. and Shane, S. A. (2003). ‘Opportunities and
Entrepreneurship’. Journal of Management, 29(3), 333-349.
Lounsbury, M. and Glynn, M. A. (2001). ‘Cultural Entrepreneurship: Stories,
Legitimacy, and the Acquisition of Resources’. Strategic Management Journal, 22:
545–564.
Mann, C. (2002). ‘Generating data online: Ethical concerns and challenges for the C21
researcher’. cited in Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). ‘The Sage Handbook of
Qualitative Research’. Third edition.
Miles, M. B. and Huberman, A. M. (1994). ‘Qualitative Data Analysis’. Sage
Publications, London.
Mitchell, V. W. (1993). ‘Industrial in-depth interviews’. Marketing Intelligence &
Planning, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 25-9. cited in Hill, J., McGowan, P. and Drummond, P.
(1999). ‘The development and application of a qualitative approach to researching the
63
marketing networks of small firm entrepreneurs’. Qualitative Market Research, 2: 71–
81.
O’Connor, E. (2007). ‘Reader beware: Doing business with a store(y) of knowledge’.
Journal of Business Venturing, 22:637-648. cited in Larty, J. and Hamilton, E. (2011).
‘Structural approaches to narrative analysis in entrepreneurship research: Exemplars
from two researchers’.
Orb, A., Eisenhauer, L. and Wynaden, D. (2000) ‘Ethics in qualitative research’.
Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 93-96.
Patton, M. (2002). ‘Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods’. 3rd ed., Sage, London
cited in Jamali, D. (2009). ‘Constraints and opportunities facing women entrepreneurs
in developing countries A relational perspective’. Gender in Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 232-251.
Rae, D. and Carswell, M. (2001). "Towards a conceptual understanding of
entrepreneurial learning". Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol.
8, Iss: 2, 150-158.
Reynolds, P. D., Bygrave, W. D., Autio, E., Cox, L. W. and Hay M. (2002) ‘Executive
Report’. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, Babson College, London Business School
and Kauffman Foundation. cited in Bhola, R., Verheul, I., Thurik, R. and Grilo, I.
(2006). ‘Explaining engagement levels of opportunity and necessity entrepreneurs’.
EIM-Business and Policy Research, September 2006.
Reynolds, P. D., Bosma, N., Autio, E., Hunt, S., Bono, N. D., Servais, I., Lopez-Garcia
P. and Chin N. (2005) ‘Global entrepreneurship monitor: data collection design and
implementation 1998-2003’. Small Business Economics, 24 (3), 205-231.
Riessman, C. K. (2008). ‘Narrative methods for the human sciences’. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Ruane, J. M. (2005). ‘Essentials of Research Methods: A Guide to Social Science
Research’. Blackwell Publishing.
64
Sassmannshausen, S. P. and Gladbach, S. (2011). ‘How to Jump Start Phd Thesis in
Entrepreneurship Research: A Practical Heuristic For Phd instructors and Students’.
Unpublished Conference Paper.
Saussure, F. (1974). ‘Course in General Linguistics’. London: Fontana, cited in Stirling,
J. A. (2001). ‘Thematic networks: an analytic tool for qualitative research’. Qualitative
Research, Sage Publications.
Schein, E. (1992). ‘Organizational Culture and Leadership, Jossey-Bass: San Francisco,
CA, cited in Lounsbury, M. and Glynn, M. A. (2001). ‘Cultural Entrepreneurship:
Stories, Legitimacy, and the Acquisition of Resources’. Strategic Management Journal,
22: 545–564.
Schumpeter, J. (1934). ‘Theory of Economic Development: An inquiry into profits,
capital, credit, interest and the business cycle’. Cited in Dutta, D. K and Crossan, M. M.
(2005). ‘The Nature of Entrepreneurial Opportunities: Understanding the Process Using
the 4I Organizational Learning Framework’. Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice,
July 2005, 425-449.
Shane, S. and Venkataraman, S. (2000). ‘The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of
research’. Academy of Management Review, 25, 217–226.
Silverman, D. (2006). ‘Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analyzing Talk, Text
And Interaction’. SAGE Publications.
Singh, et al., (1986). ‘Organizational Legitimacy and the Liability of Newness’.
Administrative Science Quarterly, (31) 171-193.
Sommer, B. and Sommer, R. (1997). ‘A practical Guide to Behavioural Research: Tools
and Techniques’. Fourth edition, Oxford University Press.
Spinelli, Jr. S., Neck, H. M. and Timmons, J. A. (2006). ‘The Timmons model of the
entrepreneurial process’ cited in Minniti, M., Zacharakis, A., Spinelli, S., Rice, M. P.
and Habbershon T. G. (2006). (Eds.), Entrepreneurship: Greenwood Publishing Group.
65
Steyaert,
C.
(1997).
‘A
Qualitative
Methodology for
Process
Studies
of
Entrepreneurship: Creating Local Knowledge through Stories’. International Studies of
Management & Organization, Vol. 27, No. 3, Entrepreneurship Research in Europe, 1333.
Steyaert, C. and Bouwen, R. (1997). ‘Telling Stories of Entrepreneurship: Towards a
Narrative-Contextual Epistemology for Entrepreneurial Studies’ cited in Johansson A.
W. (2004). ‘Narrating the Entrepreneur’. International Small Business Journal, 22: 273.
Stinchcombe, A. L. (1965). "Organizations and social structure." cited in Singh, et al.,
(1986). ‘Organizational Legitimacy and the Liability of Newness’. Administrative
Science Quarterly, (31) 171-193.
Stinchcombe, A. L. (1968). ‘Constructing Social Theories’. New York: Harcourt, Brace
& World. cited in Singh, et al., (1986). ‘Organizational Legitimacy and the Liability of
Newness’. Administrative Science Quarterly, (31) 171-193
Stirling, J. A. (2001). ‘Thematic networks: an analytic tool for qualitative research’.
Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, 1 (3), 385-405.
Suchman, M. C. (1995). ‘Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional
Approaches’. Academy of Management Review, 20:571-610 cited in Lounsbury, M.
and Glynn, M. A., (2001). ‘Cultural Entrepreneurship: Stories, Legitimacy, and the
Acquisition of Resources’. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 545–564.
Timmons, J. A. (1985). ‘New Venture Creation’. (2nd edition), Irwin, Homewood,
Illinois
Timmons, J. and Spinelli, S. (2007) ‘New venture creation: Entrepreneurship for the
21th century’. 7th edition, Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Uhlaner, L. M and Thurik, A. R. (2007). ‘Post-materialism: a cultural factor influencing
total entrepreneurial activity across nations’. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 17(2):
161-185.
66
Van de Ven. A.H., Polley, D. E., Garud, R., and Venkataraman, S. (1999). ‘The
Innovation Journey’. New York, Oxford University Press.
67
APPENDIX – 1: ABOUT INTERVIEWEES
European
Line of Business
Age
Nationality
Education
19
Originated from
Currently studying
printing clothing/gift company (sales
South India but
Bachelor of
via student sales associates)
born and raised in International
Entrepreneur
1
Total Work
Experience
Personalization, embroiding and
8
Middlesex/UK
Business
Management
2
Online furniture retailer
35
54
British born and
A Level
raised
3
Online GP locum agency
4
26
British born and
Bachelor degree of
raised
Business
Administration
4
Youth Entrepreneurial Skill
8
23
Development
5
Fashion company (reversible blazers) 2
22
British born and
Left School at 16
grew up in Spain
with a few GCSE's
Anglo Moroccan
Currently studying
(British citizen,
Business and retail
Moroccan father
management.
and English
Mother, raised in
Spain)
68
APPENDIX- 2: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
a. Can you tell me little about your background (where you are from/
nationality, education, job experiences, age, years experience)? How did
first get involved with entrepreneurial adventures? What was the first
business or industry you were involved with? What was it like?
b. What would you say is your greatest entrepreneurial success?
c. How you describe any failures that you have had?
d. When, under what circumstances, and from whom did you become
interested in entrepreneurship? Were your parents, relatives, close
friends entrepreneurial? Was it necessary based or opportunity driven
entrepreneurial journey?
e. Where there any key incidents or life changing events that inspired your
decision to become an entrepreneur?
f. Describe how you decided to start your entrepreneurial journey?
g. How did you spot/discover the opportunity? How did it surface? what
metrics did you use to measure their viability
h. How did you evaluate/interpret the opportunity in terms of the critical
elements for success? Did you have specific criteria you wanted to meet?
i. How did you exploit/realize the opportunity? How did you balance the
risk with potential reward?
j. How did you develop the right team? When you looked for key
personnel, either employees or partners, were there any personal
attributes or attitudes you desired because you knew that criteria would
fit with you and were important to the future success of the firm? How
did you find these individuals?
k. How did you devise ingenious strategies to marshall the limited
resources to capture the opportunity? Did you find or need partners or go
it alone? What kind of financing did you start with? How long for you to
reach a positive cash flow and break even sales volume?
l. What outside help did you get during your entrepreneurial journey? How
did outside advisors make a difference in your business?
69
m. What do you consider your most important factors that enabled you to
make it?
n. Do you see any barriers or entrepreneurial opportunities in different EU
countries? Are there some countries that are more difficult to do business
in over others? Did any EU policy play an important role in your
entrepreneurial journey?
o. How do you describe European entrepreneurial ecosystem/environment?
Do you think European Entrepreneurs are unique from entrepreneurs in
other countries like Asia, Africa or the Americas?
p. Are there any questions I haven’t asked you that you think I should have
asked you? Is there any final advice you would give to new
entrepreneur’s just entering the field?
70