cross cultural investigation of planning and entrepreneurial success
DESCRIPTION
Presented at the 15th International Conference of the European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology, Maastricht, The Netherlands, May 25th-28th, 2011TRANSCRIPT
Marjan Gorgievski, Ph.D., Erasmus University RotterdamDominika Dej, Ph.D. , Technical University Dresden
Ute Stephan, Ph.D. , University of Sheffield
15th International Conference of the European Association of Work and Organizational
Psychology, Maastricht, The Netherlands, May 25th-28th, 2011
Gain spiral of Resources, Engagement and Entrepreneurial PerformanceBased on The JD-R model, e.g. Bakker & Demerouti, 2007
Job resourcesAutonomySocial support
Personal resourcesBroad traitsSpecific traitsHuman capital
Job Demands
Motivation
Work engagement
Job Performance-In role performance-Ex role performance-CreativityBusiness outcomes-Financial turnover
Empirical Evidence
Ample evidence for a positive gain spiral of personal and job resources and work engagement (overview: Salanova, Schaufeli, Xanthopoulou & Bakker, 2010)
Ample evidence for the positive relationship between work engagement and performance, also for entrepreneurs (Overview: Gorgievski, Bakker & Schaufeli, 2010)
Predicting Entrepreneurial performance
No planningPlanning
Proactive
Opportunistic
Reactive
Reactive
Top-down
Complete Planning
Localized
Critical Point
Individual-level planning or self-management styles play a central role; Giessen-Amsterdam-Model, Rauch & Frese, 2001, 2007; Frese, 2007; Frese et al., 2007)
• Informal, everyday activity• Proces planning• Personal difference variable (habituation), but it can be changed easier than a
trait
Empirical Evidence concerning Planning
Evidence for a positive relationship between critical point / complete planning and entrepreneurial performance (Frese et al., 2000, 2002, 2007; Frese, 2007; Frese et al., 2007; Rauch et al., 2000; Stephan et al., 2006; Van Gelderen et al., 2000)
Evidence for a negative relationship between reactive strategies and entrepreneurial performance (Frese et al., 2000, 2002, 2007; Frese, 2007; Frese et al., 2007; Rauch et al., 2000; Stephan et al., 2006; Van Gelderen et al., 2000)
Evidence for cross-cultural differences in effectiveness of different planning styles (Stephan et al., 2006)
Research Model
Job resources
Decision latitudeSkill variety
Personal resources
Personal innitiative
Self efficacy
PlanningFull planningCritical point
planning
Work engagement
Subjective business success
What the study adds
Evidence on the relationship between resources job resources, perdsonal resources and planning?
Evidence on the relationship planning and work engagement?
Evidence for a possible mediating effect of planning styles in the resources – performance, and resources – engagement relationship.
Method
N=150 business owners (response rate 29%)Germany N=62The Netherlands N = 40Poland N = 49
Invited by telephone, face to face interviews
Mean age 43.06 years (sd = 9.63)On average 12.11 years in business (sd = 7.12)76 % males30 % from entrepreneurial family
Measurements
Job ResourcesSkill discretion and Decision making latitude (JCQ; 8 items, alpha
= .71)Personal resources
Personal Initiative (Frese et al. 1996; 7 items, alpha = .79 )Self efficacy (Schwarzer und Jerusalem; 10 items, alpha = .84)
Planning stylesCritical point planning (Zempel, 2003; 5 items = .69)Complete planning (Zempel, 2003; 4 items, alpha = .77)
work-engagement (UWES; 9 items, alpha = .92); entrepreneurs’ subjective firm business success (Stephan,
Dej, Lukes & Richter, 2007; 7 items, alpha = .81);
Correlations between study variables
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Job resources - .50*** .18 .16 .48*** .20+
2. Personal resources .63*** - .54* .18 .44*** .44***
3. Critical point planning .37+ .19 - .14 .17
4. Full planning .35 .15 - .18 .06
5. Work engagement .44* .22 .42* .73** - .17+
6. Subjective success .26 .40* -.35* -.31 -.18 -
Upper diagonal: Germany/The Netherlands (N = 102)Lower diagonal, Poland (N=49)
N = 102; X2 = 36.66, df = 38, TLI = 1.01, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .000
Job resources
Decision latitudeSkill variety
Personal
resources
Personal innitiative
Self efficacy
Planning
Critical point
Work engageme
nt
Subjective
business success
.41**
.60***
.82**
.80**
N = 102; X2 = 46.34, df = 38, TLI = .93, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .04
Job resources
Decision latitudeSkill variety
Personal resource
sPersonal
innitiativeSelf efficacy
Planning
Full planning
Work engagement
Subjective business success
.79**
.75**
.52**
.23**
Critical point PolandJob
resourcesDecision latitude
Skill variety
Personal
resources
Personal innitiative
Self efficacy
Planning
Critical point
Work engageme
nt
Subjective
business success
.46**
.36**
-.61*
.58***
.69**
N = 49 ; X2 = 36.66, df = 38, TLI = 1.01, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .000
.28**
Job resources
Decision latitudeSkill variety
Personal
resources
Personal innitiative
Self efficacy
Planning
Full planning
Work engageme
nt
Subjective
business success
.76**
.43***
.54**
Full planning Poland
N = 49 ; X2 = 46.34, df = 38, TLI = .93, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .04
.49**
ConclusionsMajor conclusion is there are important cross national differences.
The data show little evidence for a mediating role of planning styles in the positive spiral of resources, well-being and performance in Germany and The Netherlands.
However, in the Polish sample, both critical point and full planning related to more work engagement.
Strangely, both planning styles and work engagement related negatively to subjective success . Robustness checks showed similar relations with objective indicators of business performance.
Question is what moderator is at work ?
Future research
Collect more data, comparing developed and developing countries.
Find meaningful moderator variables
Conduct longitudinal studies to investigate causality.
For example: Prior studies showed poor planning results in poor business
performance. However, poor performance caused by environmental factors might stimulate planning, which increases performance (although it may still be poor) which in turn increases work engagement.