Linking entrepreneurs perceptions of their entrepreneurial competence to entrepreneurial performance: proposition of a conceptual framework

1 LINKING ENTREPRENEURS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR ENTREPRENEURIAL COMPETENCE TO ENTREPRENEURIAL PERFORMANCE: PROPOSITION OF A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Amira BEN SALAH [email protected] Doctoral Student, Entrepreneurship Research Center, EM Lyon Business School, Lyon, France, Research Unit: Quantitative Finance, IHEC Sousse, University of Sousse, Tunisia. Alain FAYOLLE [email protected] Professor, EM Lyon Business School, France Imen BEN SALAH [email protected] Doctoral Student, Entrepreneurship Research Center, EM Lyon Business School, Lyon, France, Research Unit: Quantitative Finance, IHEC Sousse, University of Sousse, Tunisia. Nelly SCHUTZ [email protected] Director of corporate relationships and Professional partnerships – AgroSup Dijon BP 87 999, 21 079 Dijon Cedex Abstract The failure of new ventures in their early stages of development is a common occurrence (Hackett and Dilts, 2004; Watson et al., 1998; Zacharakis et al., 1999). One of the key factors of failure identified in the literature is the lack of experience and skills of nascent entrepreneurs. This often results in the lack of long-term vision and the difficulty or even inability to find a profitable niche for the new company (Festervand and Forrest, 1991; Gaskill et al. 1993; Baldwin et al., 1997; Saint-Jean, 2008). Consequently, the capacity of entrepreneurs to acquire new knowledge and skills during the start-up process is as critical as to new venture success (Gartner et al., 1998). Given that the importance of entrepreneurial competence (EC) and entrepreneurial competence development are widely acknowledged as being key to new venture success, it is surprising to see that very little research has investigated this issue in the context of new venture support and/or incubation programmes. In this context, our paper aims to explain, by proposing a conceptual model, the role played by new business support and/or incubation programmes in the improvement of entrepreneurs‟ perceptions of their entrepreneurial competence and how this affects the performance of entrepreneurial activities. Several propositions are then generated and discussed that are designed to explore the relationships between the main variables of our model. Key Words: Perception – Entrepreneurial competence (EC) – New venture support structures – new venture support programmes – Business incubation programmes – Entrepreneurial self -efficacy (ESE) – Self-awareness of entrepreneurial competence (SAEC) - Beliefs about the improvability of entrepreneurial competence (BAIEC). 2 Introduction It is generally acknowledged that the failure of new ventures during their start-up process is a common occurrence (Hackett and Dilts, 2004a; Watson et al., 1998; Zacharakis et al., 1999). In April 2010, according to the French Observatoire des Entreprises, 30.7% of failing businesses had less than three years of existence. The disappointingly high failure rate of new business start-ups has seen the rise of many attempts to answer the question “why do some new firms succeed and others fail?” (Cooper, 1993). One of the key factors of failure is nascent entrepreneurs‟ lack of experience and skills. This often results in the lack of longterm vision and the difficulty or even inability to find a profitable niche for the new company (Festervand and Forrest, 1991; Gaskill et al. 1993). Gartner et al. (1998) support this point of view and see the aptitude of entrepreneurs to acquire new knowledge and skills during the start-up process as critical to new venture success. Thus, “if the purpose is to increase the probabilities of start-up survival, these findings imply that appropriate support in terms of learning and entrepreneurial skills development is proving to be essential” (Saint-Jean 2008). Parallel to these findings, a large number of authors underline the positive impact of new business incubating and support arrangements during the process of new venture creation and their predominance as tools for promoting and developing entrepreneurial skills in entrepreneurs. This global trend is confirmed by several recent studies. Indeed, figures derived from the French innovation agency‟s statistics (OSEO, 2006), show that the survival rate of incubated new businesses, in particular those which received support during the startup phase, is significantly higher than that of non-supported businesses. With the main objective to facilitate the development of conditions required to ensure successful business operations (Lumpkin and Ireland, 1988), these new business support structures are seen (Smilor and Gill, 1986; McAdam and Marlow, 2007; Lalkaka, 2002; Rice and Matthews, 1995) as places devoted to the development of potential entrepreneurial talent within a community. They provide entrepreneurs with services and guidance that complement their natural talents and enable them to expand their potential (Smilor, 1985), especially at a time when the new business is particularly vulnerable to market uncertainties. The definition of new venture support proposed by Cuzin and Fayolle (2004) corroborates this point of view. According to these authors new venture support is the “practice of helping entrepreneurs in their new venture creation processes, by establishing a long-term relationship between the business founder and an individual who is external to the new 3 venture creation process. Through the relationship, the entrepreneur will engage in valuable learning experiences, access resources and develop useful skills to see his project come to fruition”. This definition clearly highlights the essential role played by incubators and start-up support structures in the development of pre-start-up entrepreneurial skills. Back in 1996 Deakins (pp. 21-22) stated “We do not understand how entrepreneurs learn, yet it is accepted that there is a learning experience from merely establishing a new enterprise. The learning process that is involved in business and enterprise development is poorly understood, yet programmes have been devised and interventions are made in business development…There is now a need for re-focusing research away from the emphasis on picking successful entrepreneurs or picking winners, to identifying key issues in the learning and developmental processes of entrepreneurship”. The question still remains to this day. Indeed, Loué et al, (2008) reported that research on entrepreneurial competence is still in its “immature” stage, as none of the works produced so far have proved operational, by providing a formal and stabilized tool for the positioning, assessment and self-assessment of entrepreneurial competencies. Faced with this lack of both practical and theoretical information, understanding this issue is becoming an important challenge for the business support institutions themselves, and the economic actors involved. Indeed, as Bruyat stated in 1993, “Without a better understanding of the phenomenon of entrepreneurship, new venture support mechanisms can never make progress and risk being thrown into doubt by economic development actors”. In this context, the contribution of our research is twofold. On a theoretical level, we seek to shed light on the development process of entrepreneurial competencies within business incubating structures and how this contributes to the performance of entrepreneurial activities. More specifically, our focus is on the impact of new venture support activities on the evolution of entrepreneurs‟ perceptions of their entrepreneurial competencies, which, according to our study, are believed to be key factors of their entrepreneurial performance. On a practical level, studying the question of entrepreneurial competence in the context of new venture support structures leads to addressing the type of issues faced by new venture support professionals. The purpose of our study is to provide insights that could ultimately lead to improving business support practices by integrating the entrepreneurial competence dimension. Thus we propose a conceptual framework of entrepreneurial competence 4 development, relating new venture support activities during the post-start-up phase with entrepreneurs‟ perceptions of their ability to develop entrepreneurial skills and their impact on the performance of entrepreneurial activities. In the first part of this paper, we provide an overview of the theoretical framework and key concepts used in this research. In the second part, we present our conceptual model and analyze the relationships between the different variables. Finally, we discuss our research propositions based on the model. 1. Business support, entrepreneurial competencies and new venture performance Starting a business is a complex process regardless of the type of project or the entrepreneur‟s level of ambition and motivation. Starting with the detection of a good business idea or opportunity through to finding and acquiring the necessary resources and competencies in order to turn this idea or opportunity into a sustainable and profitable business, the entrepreneur is permanently faced with challenges and risks, and cannot always assume this responsibility alone. Based on this observation, business support programs have been developed to help improve new venture performance and long-term survival of novice businesses. 1.1. THE EVOLVING ROLE OF BUSINESS SUPPORT AND INCUBATION PROGRAMMES Historically, business incubation and support activities are mainly focused on providing financial support, advice and training during the pre-start-up phase, following a mechanistic and sequential approach of the new business start-up process. In recent years the role played by these support and incubation structures has undergone a significant evolution. Their services have expanded to include coaching, integration into entrepreneurial networks, establishing contacts with business managers, assisting entrepreneurs during the post-start-up phase, company-hosting services, personalized training, etc.. Depending on the type of new business concerned, the nature and scope of the assistance provided can vary greatly, implying that business support activities can take many forms. Throughout the entrepreneurial process, entrepreneurs often have an incomplete perception of their environment, their capacities and resources, aspirations and/or long-term objectives 5 (Bruyat, 2001). The role of the persons in charge of supporting new businesses is to help entrepreneurs clarify their representations and develop their skills and capacities by proposing favourable conditions to learning. Understanding how entrepreneurs acquire skills and therefore what kind of support facilitates such learning is a key issue for professionals who assist company founders. However, despite the recognition that business incubation programs improve entrepreneurs‟ performance and the efficiency of the activities they carry out, these business support arrangements have received little attention among researchers in the field of entrepreneurship. The few existing studies tend to focus on the analysis of the technical tools and activities proposed by the business incubator (such as providing physical resources, developing a business plan, helping with administrative procedures and other services). Relatively few studies consider the impact of the psychological changes incurred during the process, such as the evolution of entrepreneurs‟ perceptions of their entrepreneurial competence1 on their entrepreneurial performance (Murphy and Young, 1996). 1.2. ENTREPRENEURIAL COMPETENCIES The concept of entrepreneurial competence refers to individual performance (Draganidis and Mentzas, 2006; Hoffmann, 1999). The concept was originally developed by educational researchers to describe the behaviour of students and teachers (Bowden and Masters, 1993). This concept was then integrated into management literature through the works of Boyatzis (1982) on entrepreneurial management. Parry (1998) argues that the birth and the rapid growth of the “competence-based approach” are rooted in the need to identify and define the characteristics of successful managers. This approach is based on the assumption that managers can be trained and progress along these lines (Burgoyne, 1993; Parry, 1998). Although for some authors “entrepreneurial competencies” refer primarily to managerial competencies or skills (Nakhata, 2007), the fact that entrepreneurial activities are not merely confined to the management of the business clearly requires considering entrepreneurial competencies as extending beyond managerial competencies (Johnson and Winterton, 1999; 1 In reference to Thomas Lans‟s work (2009). The degree of perceived entrepreneurial competence is explained and measured using a number of psychological variables such as the “self-awareness of entrepreneurial competence” and the “beliefs about the improvability of entrepreneurial competence”. 6 Lau and Shaffer, 1999; Chandler and Hanks, 1994). Bird (1995) defines entrepreneurial competencies as “underlying characteristics such as generic and specific knowledge, motives, traits, self-images, social roles, and skills which result in venture birth, survival, and/or growth”. Throughout this work, we refer to the definition proposed by Man et al (2002) in which “entrepreneurial competencies are considered a higher-level characteristic encompassing personality traits, skills and knowledge, and therefore can be seen as the total ability of the entrepreneur to perform a job role successfully”. This definition highlights the relationship of entrepreneurial competence with individual-level work outcomes and new venture performance (Baum, 1995; Chandler and Hanks, 1994, Chandler and Jansen, 1992; McClelland, 1987). There seems to be a general consensus on the fact that the entrepreneurial competencies are carried by individuals who begin and transform organizations (Mitchelmore and Rowley, 2010). In response to particular issues outlined by Cooper and Gascon (1992) and Murphy et al. (1996) about the relationships between SME performance and its antecedents, Man et al. (2002) developed and validated empirically a conceptual model of entrepreneurial competencies to link the individual characteristics of SMEs‟ owner-managers and their firms „performance. In this work, the authors explicitly correlate SMEs‟ entrepreneurial behaviours to the founders‟ individual competencies. Their model puts forward six major areas of entrepreneurial competencies, namely the opportunity, relationship, conceptual, organizing, strategic, and commitment competencies (Man et al, 2002). The following table provides the definitions of the six identified areas of entrepreneurial competencies with some of their underlying dimensions and behaviours. 7 Table 1: Areas of entrepreneurial competencies, definitions, examples of behaviours and underlying dimensions Competence area Behavioural focus Examples of behaviours Underlying dimensions Opportunity competencies Competencies related to recognizing and developing market opportunities through various means Identifying, assessing and seeking business opportunities Pro-active searching Alertness Relationship competencies Competencies related to person-to-person or individual-to-group-based interactions, e.g., building a context of cooperation and trust, using contacts and connections, persuasive ability, communication and interpersonal skills Building relationships and networks; communicating; negotiating; managing conflict effectively Teamwork Social perception Negotiating Conceptual competencies Competencies related to different conceptual abilities, which are reflected in the behaviours of the entrepreneur, e.g., decision skills, absorbing and understanding complex information, and risk-taking, and innovativeness Developing quick and intuitive thinking for decision-making; viewing situations from various angles; innovating; assessing risks Diagnosing problems Analysis Judgment Organizing competencies Competencies related to the organization of different internal and external human, physical, financial and technological resources, including team-building, leadership, training, and control Planning, organizing, leading, motivating, delegating and controlling Personnel management Planning and organization Strategic competencies Competencies related to setting, evaluating and implementing the strategies of the firm Setting challenging yet achievable business goals and vision; devising strategies to achieve these goals; assessing the effectiveness of strategies and taking corrective action when necessary; making strategic changes and using business tactics Result orientation Strategic orientation Vision Commitment competencies Competencies that drive the entrepreneur to move ahead with the business Sustaining effort; committing to long-term goals; committing to personal goals and starting over in case of failure Learning orientation Self management 1.3. THE PERCEPTION OF ENTREPRENEURIAL COMPETENCIES Perception is the process whereby individuals organize and interpret their sensory impressions in order to give meaning to their environment. However, even though it is not always the case, what we perceive may be significantly different from the objective reality (Robbins and Judge, 2009). In different situations, individuals act according to several factors, in particular, 8 their beliefs, motives or intentions. Therefore, individuals‟ perceptions will have an impact on both the ways of thinking and acting (Robbins and Judge, 2009). Entrepreneurs‟ self-perceptions of their entrepreneurial competencies play an important role in the success of the new venture creation process (Mitchell et al. 2002; Edelman and Yli- Renko, 2010; Baron, 1998; Allinson, Chell and Hayes, 2000). Mitchell et al. define entrepreneurial cognitions as (2002), “the knowledge structures that people use to make assessments, judgments, or decisions involving opportunity evaluation, venture creation, and growth”. Chandler and Jansen‟ results (1992) showed that the most successful founders who achieved higher levels of growth and earnings, perceive themselves as skilled in the entrepreneurial, managerial, and technical-functional roles. When this is not the case, business founders must be prepared to engage in all kinds of training and learning activities, so they can adapt to their new roles and acquire the necessary skills. In other words, entrepreneurs who perceive themselves as lacking the necessary competencies, and yet fail to engage in acquiring the missing skills will leave the nascent organization vulnerable to competition, market evolutions, and new technological and societal demands (Lans, 2009). In line with this author‟s approach, we examine the individual factors and characteristics that influence the entrepreneurs‟ self-perceptions of their entrepreneurial competencies (selfawareness of entrepreneurial competencies) and their beliefs about the possibility of developing and improving these competencies. These two dimensions serve as the basis for our conceptual framework, which is be presented in the second part of this paper. 1.4. THE PERFORMANCE OF ENTREPRENEURIAL ACTIVITIES Measuring new venture performance had never been an easy task for researchers, but a significant challenge to overcome (Chandler and Hanks, 1993). Indeed, there is some agreement that different methods should be used for measuring business performance depending on the industry concerned (Hofer 1983; Venkatraman and Ramanujam 1986).Some researchers have focused on determining the most relevant performance criteria for large founded firms (Dalton et al. 1980; Kanter and Brinkerhoff 1981); however, few have endeavoured to identify performance measurement criteria applicable to small emergent firms 9 (Chandler & Hanks, 1993; Brush 1990; Brush and Vanderwerf, 1992; Chandler and Hanks, 1991; Robinson et al., 1986). In the framework of this research, we are not concerned so much with the performance of the new venture as with the entrepreneur‟s performance in each task/activity required by the new venture creation process. Therefore we will first identify these various tasks before examining how their performance is measured. There is a significant body of research addressing the measurement of entrepreneurial selfefficacy (ESE) in relation to entrepreneurial activities. Indeed, McGee et al. (2009) suggest that salient literature on ESE is devoted to identify tasks associated with core entrepreneurial activities or skills, such as opportunity recognition, risk and uncertainty management, and innovation. In most of these works, the objective is to assess the relationship between perceived self-efficacy and the performance of entrepreneurial tasks, activities or competencies. Chen et al (1998) proposed a list of 22 items to identify these entrepreneurial tasks, activities and/or competencies, which were then grouped into five dimensions: (1) marketing, (2) innovation, (3) management, (4) risk taking, and (5) financial control. Based on the works of Stevenson et al. (1985), Mueller and Goic (2003) developed a model of entrepreneurial activities based on the four phases of the new venture creation process: searching (business idea, opportunity, etc.), planning (business plan), marshaling (intellectual, human, financial resources, etc.) and implementing. In order to analyze and conceptualize entrepreneurs‟ motivations in relation to the entrepreneurial roles required by specific task requirements, Miner (1990) identified five broad categories of entrepreneurial roles: self-achievement (the desire to achieve through one‟s own efforts and to attribute success to personal causation), risk avoidance (the desire to avoid risk and leave little to chance), feedback of results (the desire for feedback), personal innovation (the desire to introduce innovative solutions), and planning for the future (desire to think about the future and anticipate future possibilities). With the primary purpose of predicting new venture success and survival, Gartner, Starr and Bhat (1998) measured the impact of 85 items on new venture performance. These items cover four broad categories of factors: individual characteristics, entrepreneurial behaviours, strategy and environment. Individual characteristics are particularly focused on the 16 role is not clearly defined, and many uncertainties may exist regarding the success of one‟s venture. These uncertainties, they claim, can become barriers to entrepreneurs, especially in the start-up phase. They add that uncertainty surrounding the likelihood of success would seem to be inextricably linked to the beliefs that individuals have of their ability to succeed i.e. their self-efficacy (Lucas and Cooper, 2004). In research on ESE in the context of social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986), self-efficacy beliefs are part of a wider set of mechanisms of self-directedness with strong impact on human thought, feeling, motivation, and action. People's beliefs in their efficacy influence the choices they make, their aspirations, how much effort they mobilize in a given endeavour and how long they persevere in the face of difficulties and setbacks (Bandura, 1991). The theory of personal self-efficacy is highly appropriate for the study of entrepreneurship, as the construct is task-specific and can therefore vary according to the task and/or activity considered. This implies that entrepreneurial self-efficacy should be assessed with regard to specific tasks and behaviours (Barbosa et al., 2007). Based on works by DeNoble et al. (1999), Chen et al. (1998), and Barbosa et al. (2007) four task-specific types of entrepreneurial self-efficacy can be identified: opportunityidentification selfefficacy, relationship self-efficacy, managerial self-efficacy and tolerance self-efficacy. Generally self-efficacy incorporates internal factors (personality-related factors) and external factors (environment-related factors) (Bird, 1988; Boyd and Vozikis, 1994). Thus, self-efficacy does not relate to a global disposition that can be measured using a global test, but rather a multifaceted phenomenon (Bandura, 1997). A high level of self-efficacy in one activity area does not necessarily imply a high level of self-efficacy in other areas (DiClemente, 1986). In order to have an explanatory and predictive power, the measures of self-efficacy must be tailored to the specific tasks being assessed and represent gradations of task requirements within those areas. This requires a clear definition of the specific field of activity, and a conceptual analysis of its various aspects and of the capabilities that the individual may need as well as the range of situations to which they may apply (Bandura, 1997). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy is a source of entrepreneurial performance. Indeed, Chen et al. (1998) show that self-efficacy and performance form a cycle of mutual reinforcement: selfefficacy affects performance through interest, motivation, and perseverance, while 17 performance provides information feedback, on the basis of which self-efficacy is further evaluated and modified. Several studies have attempted to examine the effects of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977, 1986; Wood and Bandura, 1989). They suggest that self-efficacy is the most effective predictor of performance (Chen et al., 1998). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy is the extent to which individuals perceive themselves as capable of successfully performing the different roles and tasks of an entrepreneur (Chen et al., 1998; DeNoble et al., 1999). Without a minimum level of self-efficacy, it is unlikely that potential entrepreneurs are sufficiently motivated to engage in the new venture creation process (Boyd and Vozikis, 1994; Krueger and Brazeal, 1994; Markman, Balkin and Baron, 2002; Zaho, Seibert, and Hills, 2005). We may also cite research by Baum and Locke (2004), which examines how the relationship between managerial skills and business performance is influenced by other variables such as the perceived self-efficacy of the owner-managers. Evidence from various empirical research findings has demonstrated the positive relationship between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and performance. Indeed, the empirical research on selfefficacy led by Prussia, Anderson, and Manz, 1998, has established a strong and lasting relationship between self-efficacy and subsequent results. Similarly, findings from Barling and Beattie (1983), Lee and Gillen (1989) and Mathieu, Martineau and Tannenbaum (1993) show that self-efficacy increases task performance. As shown above, the positive impact of self-efficacy on entrepreneurial performance has been relatively well demonstrated by prior empirical research. Accordingly, we make the following proposition: P3: Enhanced entrepreneurial self-efficacy in the context of business support or incubation activities contributes to the performance of entrepreneurial activities. 2.4. NEW VENTURE SUPPORT AND COMPETENCE DEVELOPMENT As mentioned in the introduction of this paper, many authors recognize the positive impact of new business support structures. Perceived as places for developing entrepreneurial talent, business support structures provide entrepreneurs with the necessary services for the development of their new ventures as well as favourable conditions to bring their projects to fruition. Business support therefore appears to be a real tool for promoting and developing entrepreneurial skills. As suggested by Bird (1995), these include a number of generic and 18 specific attributes such as one‟s motives, personality traits, self-image, social role(s) and skills, which all contribute to new venture birth, survival, and/or growth. Entrepreneurs‟ perceptions of their entrepreneurial competencies play an important role in the success of entrepreneurial processes (Mitchell et al. 2002; Baron, 1998; Allinson, Chell and Hayes, 2000). According to Lans (2009), two key factors influence entrepreneurs‟ perceptions and therefore the decision to develop entrepreneurial competencies or not: namely selfawareness of entrepreneurial competencies and the current belief in the possibility of improving them. That is to say, if owner-managers (or entrepreneurs) are not aware of their situation and/or not motivated to mobilize activities aimed developing their competence, the small firm will hardly be able to face changes in the market, competition, technology and societal demands (Lans, 2009). Based on the premise that business support and/or incubation activities play an essential role in the development of entrepreneurial competencies in entrepreneurs, and that, in order to succeed, entrepreneurs must be aware of their competencies (or lack thereof) and of their ability to improve them, we make the assumption that business support structures can help entrepreneurs improve the perception of their entrepreneurial competencies and achieve the desired performance. This leads us to the following research propositions: P4: New business support or incubation activities have a positive impact on entrepreneurs’ self-awareness of their EC. P5: New business support or incubation activities have a positive impact on entrepreneurs’ beliefs about the improvability of their EC. P6: New business support or incubation activities have a positive impact on improving entrepreneurial self-efficacy in entrepreneurs. P7: New business support or incubation activities have a positive impact on the performance of entrepreneurial activities. C ONCLUSION Our research belongs to the field of entrepreneurial psychology. It aims at proposing a theoretical framework linking three main variables, namely: new business venture support, 19 perceptions of the entrepreneurial competencies of novice entrepreneurs and finally, the performance of entrepreneurial activities. Lans (2009) argues that human resource development (HRD) practices aimed at enhancing and further developing the entrepreneurial competencies of SME owner-managers remain complex and that research in this setting is quite rare, even more so concerning emerging entrepreneurs. Our research contributes to this issue by investigating three key aspects or factors that could influence and determine entrepreneurs‟ decisions to develop their entrepreneurial competencies. We refer here to entrepreneurs‟ self-awareness of their current skill-set, their beliefs about the improvability of these skills and their perceived entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Our next step will be to strengthen our theoretical position and to test our conceptual model in the context of “Réseau Entreprendre®”. For this purpose, we will opt for a quantitative approach and a longitudinal analysis to better understand and assess the varying perceptions of the supported entrepreneurs resulting from their interactions with an external mentor. 20 References Allinson, C. W., Chell, E., & Hayes, J. (2000). Intuition and entrepreneurial Behavior. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9(1), 31-43. Amundson, N. (1995). An interactive model of career decision making, Journal of Employment Counseling, Vol. 32, pp. 11-21. Atwater, L. & Yammarino, F. (1992). Does self-other agreement on leadership perceptions moderate the validity of leadership and performance predictions?, Personnel Psychology, Vol.45 No.1, Spring, pp.14-64 Baldwin, J., Gray T., Johnson J., Proctor J., Rafiquzzaman M. & Sabourin D. (1997). Les faillites d‟entreprise au Canada, Rapport n° 61-525-XIF, Statistique Canada, Ottawa, 72 p. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change, Psychological Review,84, pp 91-215. Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman & Company. Bandura, A. (2000). Cultivate self-efficacy for personal and organizational effectiveness. In E. A. Locke (Ed.), Handbook of principles of organization behavior. (pp. 120-136). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Bandura. A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 248-287. Barbosa S., Gerhardt M.W. & Kickul J.R. (2007). The Role of Cognitive Style and Risk Preference on Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy and Entrepreneurial Intentions, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Volume 13, Number 2, pp 86-104. Barling, J. & Beattie, R. (1983). Self-efficacy beliefs and sales performance, Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 5, 41-51. Baron, R. A., (1998). Cognitive mechanisms in entrepreneurship: Why and when entrepreneurs think differently than other people, Journal of Business Venturing (13), pp. 275-294. Baum, J. R. (1995). The Relationship of Traits, Competencies, Motivation, Strategy and Structure to Venture Growth in W. D. Bygrave et al, (Eds.). Frontier of Entrepreneurship Research 1995: Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Entrepreneurship Research Conference, 547-561. Babson Park, MA: Center of Entrepreneurial Studies. Baum, R. J., & Locke, E. A. (2004). The relationship of entrepreneurial traits, skill, and motivation subsequent venture growth. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 587-598. Bergek A. & Norrman C., (2008), Incubator best practice: A framework, Technovation 28 (2008), pp 20-28. Bird, B. (1988). Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for intention. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 442–453. Bird, B. (1995). Toward a theory of Entrepreneurial Competency. Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth, Volume 2, Page 51-72. Bowden, J. &Masters, G. (1993). Implications for higher education of competency-based Approach to education and training, AG PS, Canberra. Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). The competent manager: A model for effective performance New York: Wiley. 21 Boyd N. G. & Vozikis G. S. (1994). The Influence of Self-Efficacy on the Development of Entrepreneurial Intentions and Actions, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol.14, N°4, pp. 63-77. Brush, C. (1990). Market information scanning practices of new ventures. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley, MA: Babson College, forthcoming. Brush, C., & Vanderwerf, P. (1992). A comparison of methods and sources for obtaining estimates of new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing 7: 157-I 70. Bruyat C. (1993). Création d‟entreprise : contributions épistémologiques et modélisation, Thèse de doctorat en sciences de gestion, Université Pierre Mendès-France, Grenoble, 431p. Bruyat, C. (2001). Créer ou ne pas créer? Une modélisation du processus d'engagement dans un projet de création d'entreprise. Revue de l'Entrepreneuriat, Vol. 1, N°1, p. 25-42. Burgoyne, J. (1993). The competence movement: Issues, stakeholders and prospects, Personnel Review, 22(6), pp. 6-13. Carter, N.M., Gartner, W.B, & Reynolds, P.D. (1996). Exploring start-up event sequences. Journal of Business Venturing 11:151–166. Chandler, G. N. et Hanks, S. H. (1993). Measuring the Performance of emerging Businesses: A validation Study. Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 8, pp 391-408. Chandler, G.N. & Jansen, E. (1992). The founder's self-assessed competence and venture Performance, Journal of Business Venturing, 7(3), pp. 223-236. Chandler, G. N. & Hanks, S. H. (1994). Founder Competence, the Environment, and Venture Performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(3): 77-89. Chandler, G.N., & Hanks, S.H. (1991). Measuring new venture performance: A comparison of objective and subjective measures. In T.G. Verser, ed., Entrepreneurship in Ongoing Organizations. Proceedings of the 6th Annual National Conference of the United States Association of Small Business and Entrepreneurship. San Diego, pp. 128-138. Chen, C. (1998). Understanding career development: a convergence of perspectives, Journal of Vocational Education and Training, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 437-61. Chen, G.C., Greene, P.G., & Crick, A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business Venturing, 13, 295–317. Church, A. H. (1997), Managerial Self-Awareness in High Performing Individuals in Organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 2, 281-292. Church, A. & Waclawski, J. (1999). Influence behaviours and managerial effectiveness in lateral relations, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 1, Spring, pp. 3-34. Cooper, A.C. & Gascon, F.J.G., (1992). Entrepreneurs, processes of founding, and new-firm performance. In: Sexton, D.L., Kasarda, J.D. (Eds.), The State of the Art of Entrepreneurship, pp.301– 340. Cuzin R. & Fayolle A. (2004). Les dimensions structurantes de l'accompagnement en création d'entreprise, La Revue des Sciences de Gestion : Direction et Gestion; Nov./Dec. 2004; 39, 210; pp. 77 88. Dalton, D.R., Todor, W.D., Spendolini, M.J., Fielding, D.J., et Porter, L.W. (1980). Organizational structure and performance: A critical review. Academy of Management Review 5(2):211-217. Deakins, D. (1996), Entrepreneurship and small Firms, McGraw –Hill, Maidenhead. DeNoble, A., Jung, D., & Ehrlich, S. (1999). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: The development of a measure and its relationship to entrepreneurship. In P.D. Reynolds, W.D. Bygrave, S. Manigart, C.M. Mason, G.D. Meyer, H.J. Sapienza & K.G. Shaver (Eds.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research (pp. 73 87). Wellesley, MA: Babson College. 22 DiClemente, C.C., (1986). Self-efficacy and the addictive behaviors, Journal of social and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 4, pp 302-315. Draganidis, F. & Mentzas, G. (2006). Competency based management: a review of systems and approaches, Information Management and Computer Security, 14(1), pp. 51-62. Drnovsek M. & Glas M. (2002). The entrepreneurial self-efficacy of nascent entrepreneurs: The case of two economies in transition, Journal of Enterprising Culture, Vol.10, N°2, pp 107-131. Dweck, C. S., Chiu. C., & Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions; A world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6,pp: 267-285. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett. E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review. 95, 256-273. Edelman L & Yli-Renko H, (2010). The Impact of Environment and Entrepreneurial Perceptions on Venture-Creation Efforts: Bridging the Discovery and Creation Views of Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, September 34(5), 833–856. Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, pp 5-12. Felin, T. & Zenger T R. (2009), Entrepreneurs as Theorists: On the origins of collective beliefs and novel strategies, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3: 127–146. Festervand, T.A. & Forrest, J.E. (1991), Small Business Failures: A framework for Analysis, Small Business Institute Director‟s Association Conference, Orlando, FL. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Fletcher, C. & Baldry, C. (2000). A study of individual differences and self awareness in the context of multi-source feedback. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 303-319. Fletcher, C., & Bailey, C. (2003). Assessing self-awareness: Some issues and methods. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18, 395–404. Gartner W.B., Starr J.A. & Bhat S., (1998). Predicting new venture survival: An analysis of “anatomy of a Start-up”. Cases from INC. Magazine, Journal of Business Venturing 14, 215–232. Gartner, W.B. (1988). Who is an entrepreneur? Is the wrong question. American Journal of Small Business, 12(4):11–32. Gartner, W.B., Bird, B.J., & Starr, J.A. (1992). Acting as if: Differentiating entrepreneurial from organizational behavior. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 16(3): pp: 13–32. Gaskill L. R., Van Auken, H. E.,& Manning R. A., (1993). A factor analytic study of the perceived causes of small business failure, Journal of Small Business Management, 31 (4), 18-31. GIE OSEO services, (2006), « L‟appui à la création: trois ans après : Regards de chefs d‟entreprise », revue REGARD SUR LES PME, N°11 Hackett S. M. & Dilts D. M., (2004a). A Real Options-Driven Theory of Business Incubation, Journal of Technology Transfer; Jan, Vol. 29. pg. 41. Hackett S. M. & Dilts D.M. (2004b). A Systematic Review of Business Incubation Research, Journal of Technology Transfer; Jan; 29, 1; pg. 55-82. Hambrick, D. C., & Crozier, L. M. (1985). Stumblers and stars in the management of rapid growth. Journal of Business Venturing, 1(1), 31–45. Hofer, C.W. (1983). ROVA: A new measure for assessing organizational performance. In R. Lamb., ed., Advances in Strategic Management Vol. 2. New York: JAI Press, pp. 43-55. Hoffmann T. (1999). The meaning of competency, Journal of European Industrial Training, 23(6), pp. 275-285. 23 Johnson S. & Winterton J. (1999). Management Skills, Skills Task Force Research Paper 3, Department for Education and Employment, London. Kanter, R.M., & Brinkerhoff, D. (1981). Organizational performance: Recent developments in measurement. Annual Review of Sociology 7:321-349. Knowdell, R. (1996), Building a Career Development Program, Davies-Black Publishing, California. Krueger, N.F., Jr. & Brazeal, D.V. (1994). Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 18(3), 91–104. Lalkaka, R. (2002). Technology Business Incubators to Help Build an Innovation-Based Economy, Journal of Change Management 3(2): 167–76. Lans T., (2009). Entrepreneurial competence in agriculture Characterization, identification, development and the role of the work environment, Thèse pour l‟obtention du titre de Docteur en science de Gestion, Wageningen University, Lans T., Biemans H., Mulder M. & Verstegen J., (2010). Self-Awareness of Mastery and Improvability of Entrepreneurial Competence in Small Businesses in the Agrifood Sector, Human Resource Development Quarterly, vol. 21, no. 2, Summer. Lau, V.P. & Shaffer, M.A. (1999). Career success: The effects of personality, Career Development International, 4, pp. 225-230. Lee, C. & Gillen, D. J. (1989). Relationship of type A behavior pattern, self-efficacy perceptions on sales performance, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10, 75-81. Lippstreu M. (2003). The role of improvability Beliefs in predicting the structure and function of implicit leadership theories. Thesis for the degree Master of Science in psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology, November 2003. Loué C., Laviolette, E-M. & Bonnafous-Boucher M. (2008). L‟entrepreneur à l‟épreuve de ses compétences : Eléments de construction d‟un référentiel en situation d‟incubation, Revue de l‟Entrepreneuriat, Vol 7, no 1. Lucas W. A. & Cooper S. Y. (2004). Enhancing self efficacy to enable entrepreneurship: the case of CMI‟s Connections , A paper presented to : High Technology Small Firms Conference, The 12th Annual International Conference at the University of Twente Enschede, The Netherlands , 24 May Lumpkin J. R. & Ireland D. R. (1988) Screening Practices of New Business Incubators: The Evaluation of Critical Success Factors. University of Baltimore Educational Foundation, Man, T.W.Y., Lau, T. & Chan, K. F. (2002). The competitiveness of small and medium enterprises. A conceptualisation with focus on entrepreneurial competencies. Journal of Business Venturing. Vol. 17 No.2, pp.123–142. Markman, G., Balkin, D., & Baron, R. (2002). Inventors and new venture formation: The effects of general self-efficacy and regretful thinking. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 27(2), 149–165. Martocchio, J. J. (1994). The effects of conceptions of ability on self-efficacy beliefs and learning in training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 819-825. Mathieu, J. E., Martineau, J. W. & Tannenbaum, S. I. (1993). Individual and situational influences on the development of self-efficacy, Personnel Psychology, 46, 125-147. Maurer T. J. & Tarulli B. A. (1996). Acceptance of Peer/Upward Performance Appraisal Systems: Role of Work Context Factors and Beliefs about Managers‟ Development Capability, Human Resource Management, Vol. 35, Number 2, Pp. 217-241. Maurer T.J. Mitchell D. R. D. & Barbeite F. G. (2002). Predictors of attitudes toward a 360-degree feedback system and involvement in post-feedback management development activity Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 87-107. 24 Maurer T.J. (2001). Career-relevant learning and development, worker age, and beliefs about selfefficacy for development, Journal of Management, 27 123–140. Maurer T.J. & Lippstreu M., (2008). Expert vs. general working sample differences in KSAO „improvability‟ ratings and relationships with measures relevant to occupational and organizational psychology, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 813-829. Maurer, T. J., Weiss, E. M., & Barbeite, F. G. (2003a). A model of involvement in work related learning and development activity: The effects of individual, situational, motivational, and age variables. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 707-724. Maurer, T. J., Wrenn, K. A., Pierce, H. R., Tross, S. A., & Collins, W. C. (2003b). Beliefs about „improvability‟ of career-relevant skills: relevance to job/task analysis, competency modeling, and learning orientation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 107-131. McAdam M.& Marlow S. (2007). Building Futures or Stealing Secrets? : Entrepreneurial Cooperation and Conflict within Business Incubators, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 25(4), p 361-382. McCarthy A. M. & Garavan T. N. (1999). Developing self-awareness in the managerial career development process: the value of 360-degree feedback and the MBTI, Journal of European Industrial Training. Bradford: Vol. 23, Iss. 9; pg. 437. McClelland, D. C. (1987). Characteristics of Successful Entrepreneurs. Journal of Creative Behavior, 2l {1): 18-21. McGee J. E., Peterson M., Mueller S. L. & Sequeira J. M. (2009). Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy: Refining the Measure, Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, July, Vol. 33 Issue 4, p965-988, 24p. Miner J.B. (1990). Entrepreneurs, high-growth entrepreneurs, and managers: contrasting and overlapping motivational patterns. Journal of Business Venturing, 5: 221-234. Mitchell, R.K., Busenitz, L., Lans, T., McDougall, P.P., Morse, E.A., & Smith, J.B. (2002). Towards a theory of entrepreneurial cognition: Rethinking the people side of entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(2), 97–104. Mitchelmore S. & Rowley J. (2010). Entrepreneurial competencies: a literature review and development agenda, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, Vol. 16, Issue 2, P 92-111. Mueller, S.L. & Goic, S. (2003). East-West differences in entrepreneurial self-efficacy: Implications for entrepreneurship education in transition economies. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 1(4), 613–632. Murphy, G.B., Trailer, J.W., & Hill, R.C., (1996). Measuring performance in entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Res. 36 (1), 15–23. Murphy, H. J. & Young, J. D. (1996). Owner of small businesses: Learning stances and selfdevelopment of management skills. Psychological Reports, 79, 867-872. Nakhata C. (2007). The Effects of Human Capital and Entrepreneurial Competencies on the Career Success of SME Entrepreneurs in Thailand. Thèse pour l‟obtention du degré de docteur en Administration des affaires. University of South Australia. Parry, S.B. (1998). Just what is a competency?, Training, 35(6), pp. 58-61. Prussia G.E., Anderson J. S. & Manz C. C. (1998). Self-Leadership and Performance Outcomes: The Mediating Influence of Self-Efficacy, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 19, No. 5, pp. 523-538. Rice, M. P. & Matthews, J. B. (1995). Growing New Ventures, Creating New Jobs: Principles & Practices of Successful Business Incubation. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Robbins S.P.& Judge T.A., (2009). Organizational Behavior, Pearson, Prentice Hall, 13ème Edition. 25 Robinson, Jr., R.B. Salem, M.Y., Logan, J.E., & Pearce, II, J.A. (1986). Planning activities related to independent retail firm performance. American Journal of Small Business 11(1): 19-26. Saint-Jean E. (2008). La formation destinée à l‟entrepreneur novice : Exploration des possibilités offertes par le mentorat, Revue de l‟Entrepreneuriat, Vol7, N°1. Seal, C. R., Boyatzis, R. E., & Bailey, J. R. (2006). Fostering Emotional and Social Intelligence in Organizations. Organization Management Journal, 3 (3), 190-209. Shane S. (2003). A General Theory of Entrepreneurship The Individual-opportunity Nexus. Edward Elgar: Northampton, MA. Shane, S. & Venkatraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226. Smallbone, D., North, D., & Kalantardis, C. (1996). The survival and growth of manufacturing SMEs in remote rural areas in the 1990s, Birmingham. Paper presented to the 19th ISBA National Small Firms Policy and Research Conference. Smilor, R. W. & Gill, M. D. (1986). The New Business Incubator: Linking Talent, Technology, Capital and Know-How. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Stevenson, H.H., Roberts, M.J., & Grousbeck, H.I. (1985). New business ventures and the entrepreneur. Burr Ridge, IL: Richard D. Irwin. Venkatraman, N., & Ramanujam, V. (1986). Measurement of business performance in strategy research: A comparison of approaches. Academy of Management Review I 1:801-S 14. Watson K.S., Hogarth-Scott S. & Wilson N. (1998). Small Business Start-ups: Success Factors and Implications, International Journal of Entrepreneurship Behavior & Research, Vol4 (3), 217-238. Wilson F. Kickul J. & Marlino D. (2007). Gender, Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy and Entrepreneurial Career Intentions: Implications for Entrepreneurship Education, Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice Vol. 31 Issue 3, p387-406, 20p. Wohlers A. J. & London M. (1989). Ratings of managerial characteristics: Evaluation difficulty, coworker agreement, and self-awareness. Personnel Psychology, 42, 235-261. Wood. R., & Bandura. A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 361-384. Zacharakis A.L., Meyer G.D. & DeCastro J. (1999). Differing Perceptions of New Venture Failure: A Matched Exploratory Study of Venture Capitalists and Entrepreneurs, Journal Of Small Business Management, Vol.37 (3), 1-14. Zhao, H., Seibert, C. & Hills C. (2005). The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 1265–1272.