Aspecto tecnológico constructivo

The process of effectuation generally starts with three categories of entrepreneurs’

“means”: “who I am”, “what I know” and “whom I know”(Sarasvathy, 2001, 2008; Sarasvathy et al., 2014).

• Who I am

“Who I am” refers to the traits, characteristics, and abilities of entrepreneurs. A plethora of studies has been undertaken on entrepreneurs’ characteristics, attributes, abilities, and traits. Some of these studies investigated special traits entrepreneurs have that a majority of the population do not possess. Others have investigated the role of these traits in relation to the success of firms. Both approaches present a profile of entrepreneurs’ special characteristics to understand how they act and what traits they use in creating organisations. As Gartner (1990, p. 62) says, “[s]tudies of psychological characteristics of entrepreneurs, sociological explanations of entrepreneurial cultures, economic and demographic explanations of entrepreneurial locations, etc., all such investigations in the entrepreneurship field actually begin at the creation of new organisation.”

50

The special characteristics of entrepreneurs influence their ability to run a business. In 1943, Schumpeter (1943) recognised that entrepreneurs have some attributes that other ordinary people do not, and these attributes enabled them to build new businesses that are regarded as engines of capitalism. Schollhammer and Kuriloff (1979) also maintain that entrepreneurs have some characteristics that differentiate them from other people, such as the need for achievement, desire for responsibility, preference for moderate risk, perception of probability of success, stimulation by feedback, energetic activity, future orientation, skill in organising, and attitude toward money. Some scholars also argue that entrepreneurs’ characteristics can form the firm's orientation and strategy development in small firms (Karami, Analoui, & Kakabadse, 2006).

Family background and genes of entrepreneurs have also been the subject of some studies attempting to explain entrepreneurial behaviour. For example, Schollhammer and Kuriloff (1979) found that English entrepreneurs come from lower and middle class origins whereas American entrepreneurs come from parents in comfortable financial circumstances. Likewise, Hunter and Wilson (2007) investigate entrepreneurs’ differences in New Zealand. After studying 178 entrepreneurs from 1840 to 1990 in New Zealand, they found that New Zealand entrepreneurs arise from the lower middle class, have commercial family backgrounds and use their skills in their businesses. In contrast, Zhang et al. (2009) investigated a large sample of identical and fraternal Swedish twins, concluding that genes do not determine entrepreneurship because shared environments may have a different effect on children’s tendencies to become entrepreneurs.

Other studies tried to address the differences between entrepreneurs and general managers to isolate the special attributes of entrepreneurs. Stewart, Watson, Carland and Carland's (1999) study, for instance, addresses the differences between entrepreneurs, small-business owners, and

51

corporate managers. In this study, they investigate three classic themes in the literature;

achievement motivation, risk-taking propensity, and preference for innovation. A survey of 767 samples from 20 states of the southern United States was collected. The results of this study show that those who were labelled as entrepreneurs rank high in all three categories. Small business managers are low in achievement motivation and preference for innovation and medium in risk- taking propensity. In comparison to the entrepreneurs group, corporate managers ranked low on all three dimensions. The study clearly shows the difference between entrepreneurs and corporate managers, indicating that the proclivity for being an entrepreneur is higher among the first group.

• What I know

“What I know”, or the knowledge and experience of an entrepreneur is the second “mean.” Ulrich (1997) considers knowledge and experience to be intellectual capital that has a positive effect on firm performance. In this regard, scholars have attempted to classify the specific knowledge and ability that could lead entrepreneurs to be successful. Knowledge and experience also impacts on exploration of new opportunities, as discussed earlier (Ardishvili & Cardozo, 2000; Shane, 2000).

Different levels of entrepreneur knowledge and experience lead to the creation of

different organisations and different performance levels in the marketplace (Honold & Silverman, 2002), therefore, different levels and attributes of knowledge affect how entrepreneurs act. For example, Smith (1967) investigated the attributes of entrepreneurs, including education and work experience, and identified two specific groups. The first is the “craftsman” group, which is defined especially by the “tool-and-die” work experience, whereas the second group is the “opportunist” group, defined by the presence of education and planned works. Barden (1977)

52

categorised entrepreneurs as caretaker and administrator, while Filley and Aldag (1978)

developed a three-fold classification of groups: craftsman, entrepreneur and professional. From another perspective, Carson and Gilmore (2000a) classified entrepreneurs based on their

marketing knowledge and ability. They argue that entrepreneurs may have analytical and creative skills and can be placed into three categories: limited marketing ability, technical competency, and learning new competency while doing business.

In conclusion, the issues of “who I am” and “what I know” refer to entrepreneurs’ special characteristics, family backgrounds, education and experience. An understanding of “who I am” and “what I know” can help entrepreneurs to leverage their knowledge and ability to create a firm or explore an opportunity. As Sarasvathy (2001) suggests, the matter of “who I am” and “what I know” is the core concept of effectuation because the effectuation process is dependent on the actor.

• Whom I know

“Whom I know” refers to entrepreneurs’ social and business networks. A number of studies confirm the relationship between an entrepreneur’s network and firm success (e.g.

Coviello & Cox, 2006; Coviello & Munro, 1997; Hite & Hesterly, 2001; Vasilchenko & Morrish, 2011). As mentioned earlier (section 2.4.6), networks are considered as social capital of

entrepreneurs and assist them to develop their current business and create a new one.

Entrepreneurs at the first stage of firm development turn to people they know for help and try to gather required resources. The main source of much needed resources often comes from people entrepreneurs already know or are close to, such as family, next of kin, or friends. Studies show that entrepreneurs at the initial stage of forming a firm prefer to control their financial situation

53

and desire to borrow money from someone they know (Sarasvathy, 2001; Smith, 1967). Therefore, this “mean” is as important as the first two means and plays a significant role in the development of a new firm.