Mezcla de Marketing 1 Producto

The current research contributes to entrepreneurial persistence research by using role theory and the mental simulation literature to put persistence decision making in a broad social context to reveal the complexity of owner-managers’ persistence decision policies. Owner-managers are not isolated individuals but are embedded in society that is extended by families and various social networks (Aldrich & Zimmer, 1986; Larson & Starr, 1993). Thus, their decisions and behaviour are shaped by the expectations associated with the roles they assume (Kahn et al., 1964). Moreover, owner-managers’ persistence decisions are also influenced by the opportunities for imagining different futures. By simultaneously presenting the four decision context factors to owner- managers, and specifically by examining the interactions of venture attachment and the other three decision context factors, I am able to capture the complexity of owner- managers’ persistence decision policies.

The findings of this research show that owner-managers’ persistence decision making is a balancing act. Meeting different expectations of existing roles is one aspect of the complexity. The significant interaction of venture attachment and family time pressure and that of venture attachment and social approval pressure demonstrate that

owner-managers not only attach importance to the venture that is an identity marker, but also seek a sense of belonging—both to family and to the business community.

My explanation for why owner-managers balance out the business domain and non-business domains is that owner-managers aim to gain social approval and to avoid social sanctions (Kahn et al., 1964), such as losing social support from the family and the community (House, 1981; King, Mattimore, King, & Adams, 1995). Another factor that may also drive owner-managers to balance out the business domain and non-business domains is owner-managers’ identities, which reflect owner-managers’ self- categorization to or identification with certain life domains (Stets & Burke, 2000). For example, owner-managers with a strong family identity are likely to identify with family expectations and are likely to exit an underperforming venture if running it collides with family expectations. Different from the extrinsic motivation to gain social approval (Falk et al., 1999), identity is an inner driving force because individuals have incorporated role expectations to the self (Stets & Burke, 2000). To exclude the identity explanation, I accounted for the impact of three types of identities (i.e., owner-managers’ actual venture attachment, family identity, and community identity) by adding them as individual-level (level-two) controls because I assume these identities affect owner-managers’ persistence decisions in a similar manner across all decision contexts. The significance and direction of the contingent relationships between venture attachment and family time pressure, between venture attachment and social approval pressure, and between venture attachment and the number of personal options remained the same after controlling for the effect of the three identities.

My explanation for the significant but unsupported relationship among venture attachment, social approval pressure, and the likelihood of persistence is that venture attachment is an intrinsic motivation and has a stronger influence on persistence decisions than social approval pressure, which is an external validation. When venture attachment is high, venture attachment dominates, and the influence of social approval pressure is smaller than when venture attachment is low and when owner-managers are more sensitive to the influence of social approval pressure.

Another aspect of the complexity of owner-managers’ persistence decision- making policies is reflected by the interaction of venture attachment and the number of personal options. This interaction demonstrates that owner-managers’ persistence decisions are influenced not only by present roles but also by perceptions of the future. The availability of personal options enables owner-managers to mentally simulate possible futures, thereby influencing persistence decisions by suggesting different behavioral avenues. My findings show that the positive relationship between venture attachment and the likelihood of persistence becomes stronger for owner-managers with many personal options than for owner-managers with few personal options. My interpretation of this finding is that owner-managers who are weakly attached to their ventures will be more sensitive to the availability of personal options than those who are strongly attached to their ventures because leaving a venture that has no special meaning to owner-managers is easier than leaving a venture that is an identity marker. Therefore, owner-managers weakly attached to their ventures are more sensitive to the availability of personal options—a resource that owner-managers could draw on to deal with pressure

from underperforming ventures. Although owner-managers strongly attached to their ventures may be able to recognize the existence of alternative personal options, they may not have the time to imagine a different future being because of the busy involvement in their underperforming ventures. It is also likely that owner-managers strongly attached to their ventures choose not to attend to alternative options because of their salient owner- manager identity that drives them to deal with every problem of their ventures. Such persistence may reflect rigid thinking as a result of the salient owner-manager identity (Hoang & Gimeno, 2010). Mental simulation, however, was a theoretical lens I used to explain the influence of the number of personal options on owner-managers’ persistence decisions. I did not, however, examine how owner-managers went through the mental simulation process and made persistence decisions. Future research can use an experimental design to examine the decision making process.

This dissertation research also contributes to entrepreneurial persistence research by showing how psychological capital and fear of failure, as two distinctive self-images, influence owner-managers’ persistence decision policies. Thereby, I answer the call from some scholars for further research on the implications of individual characteristics on entrepreneurial persistence (Hoang & Gimeno, 2010; Holland & Shepherd, 2011). My research shows that psychological capital and fear of failure make a unique contribution to owner-managers’ persistence decisions after controlling for the effect of many other personal and environmental characteristics, including owner-managers’ actual venture attachment, family identity, community identity, gender, human capital, environmental dynamism, and personal investment.

When I included psychological capital and fear of failure in the form of a composite of different dimensions, I did not find many significant interactions between psychological capital and level-one factors or interactions, or between fear of failure and level-one factors or interactions. The reason for this finding may be that not all dimensions of psychological capital and fear of failure explain the heterogeneity of owner-managers’ persistence decision policies. Moreover, different dimensions of psychological capital and fear of failure interact with different level-one factors or interactions, sometimes in different manners, to affect the likelihood of persistence. Therefore, when combining all dimensions together, the overall impact of psychological capital and fear of failure on owner-managers’ persistence decision policies will be reduced or cancelled. This finding suggests the need for examining the influence of the individual dimensions of the two constructs, as I did in exploratory analyses.

Below, I have a deeper discussion on my findings about the influence of the individual dimensions of psychological capital and fear of failure on owner-managers’ persistence decisions.