Motivation in Multiple Business Entrepreneurship

Check out more papers on Entrepreneurship Motivation

Motivation in multiple business entrepreneurship

1.1 Introduction

Multiple business entrepreneurship is defined by Westar (2007, pg 867) as an important gauge of entrepreneurial success. It defines a serial entrepreneur as one who earns a living from starting up companies, operating them until they become competitive, and them selling them at that stage. The need for achievement has been considered as a major motivation in multiple entrepreneurs, among successful small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs), (Mika Pasanem, pg 418). More attention is given to the duties of such entrepreneurs in regional economic development.

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get your custom essay on

“Motivation in Multiple Business Entrepreneurship”

Get custom essay

According to MacMillan (1986, pg 241), there is a form of multiple entrepreneurs who are also called habitual entrepreneurs because of lack of a more profound definition, but to leave the single business entrepreneurs with the name, “one shot or novice entrepreneurs”. According to Donckels et al (1987, pg 54), serial entrepreneurs, are unable to fully participate in a single business idea, a phenomenon that makes it difficult to ascertain whether their motivation comes from involvement in enterprise start-ups, or in the need to achieve.

On the other hand, Birley and Westhead (1993, pg 14), defines serial entrepreneurs as the kind who establish at least one other business prior to the startup of the current new independent venture, whose motivation derives from the success of the previous venture. Inasmuch as that may be so, the literature of entrepreneurship dictates that multiple entrepreneurship not only encompass founding or starting up more businesses, but also owning them as well (Hall, 1995, pg 220). More profound meaning of a serial entrepreneur, is the one who owns business after another but effectively just one business at a time, i.e. previous business may have been closed, sold, or had a legal outcome, (Hall 1995, pg 220)

The topic of multiple entrepreneurship, elicits considerable attention from different business fields, since they vary between 11-36% of the total population of enterprises, though without systematic frequency assessment of multiple business owners in the economy (Scott and Rosa, 1996). Also, the fact that large and small firms’ studies focus more in terms of operational issues, than ownership and control, tend to leave out the motivational aspects necessary for an entrepreneur (Espresso 1999, pg 121). This indicates a rather restrictive school of thought that some form of motivation could come from the small businesses impact on the community, i.e. job and wealth creation, thereby leaving the question of what motivates such entrepreneurs quite unclear, since different individuals would be motivated by different achievements (Isaac, Robert, 2004, pg 40).

Since serial and portfolio entrepreneurs in urban areas report higher levels of employment growth than those in rural areas (Spilling, 2000), it would be considered as some sort of motivation for such entrepreneurs because they give a considerable piece to the economic growth.

According to Alsos and Kolvereid (1998), the high frequency of serial entrepreneurs among entrepreneurs suggests that the existing firms’ owners are a dominant source of new profitable firms which are beneficial to the economy. However the serial entrepreneurs’ motives could range from pull and push factors (Krieger 1994). Diversification strategies through the multiple firm ownership is an efficient mechanism for launching new ventures as well as the growth of the existing ones, that the serial entrepreneurs keep ready for sale, and where in the first place may realize economies of sale and other efficiencies from managing the firms/ventures as a cluster, as opposed to a single one.

As a form of motivation to the serial entrepreneur, he or she receives an alternative approach to understanding the business mechanisms for growth at the local and regional business level which is an important element in regional economic development (Krieger). How better could motivation be, if not based on business growth? According to Storey (1987), there exists evidence that entrepreneurs of high growth firms are often associated with huge rate of multiple ownerships.

Multiple business creation has been found to be an ideal way of reaching the owner-manager’s aim of growth (Carter 1998), in which entrepreneurs may substitute the growth of one venture with the creation of multiple firms. The motivation received from the success of multiple ventures is best seen in the Scholl hammer (1991) study of incidence and determination of multiple entrepreneurship, which found 80% of all second venture initiatives to be in the same industry as the prior business efforts or even closely related.

Such an occurrence demonstrates according to (Scholl hammer 1991), a tendency of the entrepreneurs’ involvement in the formation of three separate firms to have the degree of relatedness to prior business drop by 52%, only to increase again within the fourth and fifth business startups.

This study explores whether or not the need for achievement acts as a significant factor to motivate serial entrepreneurs. In this respect, need theory might be useful in helping ascertain whether need for achievement affects persistent behavior of entrepreneurs, as well as whether a need for achievement and business goals can influence such need.

1.2 Objectives;

Motivational Factors of Multiple Business Entrepreneurs

According to (Timmons, 1992), many people dream of working for themselves through starting their own businesses, but few realize that dream due to lack of persistence, which attributes to the high rate of failures. There are several uncertainties associated with the creation of new ventures, which calls for the entrepreneur to assume personal, social, and psychological risks (Lumpkin and Dess 1996).

According to Baum (1996), Multiple Business entrepreneurs must persist in their efforts when they are faced with difficulties and uncertainties such as bankruptcies, social discouragements. However, previous empirical studies have not been consistent, where the motivation variables and personal characteristics have been found to account for only a small proportion of the variance identified in such studies, with the results often found to conflict. That notwithstanding, there are two possible explanations for such inconsistency and conflict in findings. They also form the basis as the major motivational factors of multiple business entrepreneurs as follows;

  • Need for achievement
  • Entrepreneurial needs

Need for Achievement

According to Stevenson and Jarillo (1990), motivation and personal characteristics may not be important in entrepreneurs’ creation of ventures. This school of thought contends that motivation does not matter in creation of ventures and rather emphasizes that people’s tendencies to meet unsatisfied needs mobilize people’s behaviors to satisfy those needs. Thus, multiple entrepreneurs feel motivated to become their own bosses, and may want to achieve more, therefore creating businesses after businesses (pg 123). Opponents of that school of thought are more than the proponents, as Carland et al (2000) likens ventures and entrepreneurs to dances and dancers as “Dancers and the dance are bound and should not be separated” (Carland et al 2000).

Stella Finny (2004), describes multiple entrepreneurs as basically motivated by an overwhelming urge to achieve and build. There are empirical findings supporting that entrepreneurial needs matter in creation of venture e.g. Withane (1991), who contend that motivation interacts with other variables particularly business goals to influence entrepreneurial behavior in terms of persistence.

Motivation is not the only factor that influences the successful outcome of entrepreneurs’ ventures, as they also employ their skills and talents to interact with the business environment to achieve success (Moses Claris, 2001). However, motivation is essential during the emerging business’s early stages (Moses Claris 2001).

Persistence comes over time, whereby scholars have noted the entrepreneurial process to take time if opportunities are to be realized and exploited successfully (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000). Whereas Multiple Entrepreneurship is a complicated process, entrepreneurs must discover the right idea, get finance, establish an office, form a team, identify the target market, promote and sell the products/services, as well as engage in other ancillary activities (Cartel et al, 1996).

According to Cartel et al (1996), it is difficult to identify commonalities among serial entrepreneurs, contrary to Michael Saws (2001) notion that serial entrepreneurs share a common experience i.e. the startup process takes time, taking on average one year to launch their businesses. Bandura (1997, pg 193-194) argues that people require high expectations of efficacy if they are to persist in the face of obstacles and aversive experiences. Similarly, Westphal and Bednar (2005) are of the view that entrepreneurs may persist in the face of difficulties and bad performance, along the old strategy as a result of pluralist ignorance, which summarizes the whole point that; because the process of starting up ventures is likely to be affected by different kinds of setbacks, persistence is required if a serial entrepreneur is to be successful.

Entrepreneurial Needs

According to Herron and Sapienza (1992), entrepreneurial needs have been exhaustively studied, which have found out the most motivational characteristics/factors associated with starting up multiple ventures include

  • A need for independence
  • A need for personal development
  • A perception the multiple ventures will prove to be helpful in wealth generation

Moses Claris (2001), on a theory based on company-level analysis, proposed that the entrepreneurial orientation consist of autonomy, innovativeness, pro-activeness, risk taking, and aggressive competitiveness, whereas Asageph Rowling (2004) classified serial entrepreneurs as possessing innovativeness, independence and willpower to achieve, control and grow. However, among all the entrepreneurial needs identified in this study, a need for achievement stands out consistently as a primary motive for multiple entrepreneurial successes (Moses Claris 2001, pg 34).

According to Gong (2003), highly motivated multiple entrepreneurs tend to be more likely to give up when their business goals are high, while nascent entrepreneurs whose need for achievement is relatively low tend to persist. The figure below is used by Gong (2003) to empirically depict the graphical illustration of the relationship.

Interpretation of the Figure

The figure indicates that when entrepreneurs set goals for business growth, the probability of persistence declines with the increase in their need for achievement, with the opposite equally as true i.e. with lower goals, the persistence probability increases with the increase in the need for achievement.

1.3. The Common Motivational Factors

According to McGeachy (2001), Psychological factors stands as major motivational factors related with multiple business entrepreneurs. In this case, there are both internal and external factors that affect the multiple entrepreneurs’ spirituality at work to build high morale in starting and developing the multiple ventures (McGeachy 2001, pg 154). The purpose to fulfill the set goals originates from deep within the entrepreneur, as part of a central core or essence, where the entrepreneurs have a profound sense of who they are, where they come from, and where they are going. It provides an enormous source of energy and direction that gives entrepreneurs meaning to life i.e. the multiplicity of work and task performance is internalized as a form of intrinsic motivation (Dehler and Welsh, 1994).

The Self Determination Theory (Deci and Ryan, 2000), has it that humans, have a fundamental need to feel autonomous in choosing their actions. When the autonomous need is satisfied, self determined motivation towards multiple entrepreneurship, is enhanced (Sheldon, et al., 2001). Self determined motivation in multiple entrepreneurs results from their starting of several ventures, out of their personal choice, satisfaction or pleasure. On the other hand, Sheldon et al, (2001) argues that non self determined motivation can be observed when one performs a behavior in order to attain a positive end state, e.g. to obtain a reward, or to avoid a negative end state e.g. avoiding a punishment.

Porras, Emery and Thomson (2007) in Success Built to last, refers to wealth, fame, and power as not the goals or accomplishments multiple entrepreneurs felt in a survey as important. Money and recognition were only byproducts of work i.e. “they are outcomes of passionately working often on an entirely different objective that is often a personal calling or cause” (pg, 20).

According to Hornady and Aboud, (2003), entrepreneurial traits and behaviors are also factors associated with multiple business entrepreneurs. An earlier research had found out that a number of trait and behavioral theories had the hall marks of those theories that an understanding of the multiple entrepreneurship phenomenon could be realized by determining the personality traits and the external contexts of the entrepreneurs’ ideas and ventures. Gartner (2005), proposed four dimensions namely individual, organization, environment and venture process.

Bird (1988) argues that Intentionality is also a factor linked with multiple business entrepreneurship, whereby it explains why one would be motivated towards Multiple Entrepreneurship over organizational employment. Multiple -Entrepreneurship clearly represents planned, intentional behavior and therefore seems amenable to research using formal models of intentions (Katz and Gartner, 1988). Intentions are the best indicators of behavior, and are both shaped and influenced by personal and situational variables (Katz and Gartner, 1988). Therefore, by focusing on intentions, scholars have looked into a wider, more holistic view of multiple entrepreneurs, and instead of simply looking behaviors and characteristics, they found other variables such as personal history, value systems, attitudes and perceptions to matter as factors affecting multiple business entrepreneurship.

According to Ajzen (2002), foundations of intentions in Multiple Entrepreneurship stem from two models namely;

  • Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior
  • Shapero’s model of the multiple entrepreneurial event

As factor affecting Multiple Entrepreneurs, the theory of planned behavior hypothesize 3 antecedents to intentions or planned behavior

  • Attitude towards operating multiple ventures
  • Subjective norm
  • Perceived Behavior Control (Bandura 1986, pg 188)

The argument is that the three antecedents affect the intentions which affect the actual behavior i.e. operating several ventures (Bandura 1986, pg 188).

So as to have the multiple entrepreneurs behave the way they do, Shapero (1982, pg 7884) proposes that they are motivated toward “life path changes” such as the multiplicity in entrepreneurship, by factors such as job, family situation, inertia and daily pulls and pushes. External factors include negative displacements e.g. being fired, transferred or demoted, while internal factors include attitude shifts such as age, and midlife crisis, that make the entrepreneur aware of the need to cover up for the lost time, thereby motivating them to open several ventures at the same time (pg 7884).

The existence or absence of role models acts as a motivational factor to multiple entrepreneurs (Robinson et al 1991). However, there is no direct association between demographic variables and multiple entrepreneurial behavior i.e. the concepts are dependent on the existence of more fundamental characteristics that affect the multiple entrepreneur (Scherer, et al 1989). Krueger (1993) argue that role models motivates multiple entrepreneurs intentions, but only if they affect attitudes.

According to Vesper (2000, pg 229), researchers have found both the push/pull theory affects multiple entrepreneurs’ motivations positively or negatively. Push factors are negative situational issues e.g. economic necessity, conflict with employer or employment, joblessness, career set backs and limited alternative opportunities that “push” the individual towards entrepreneurship (Olofsson, 2000).

On the other hand, pull factors are characterized as affirmative events that “pull” an individual to becoming a multiple entrepreneur. Need to achieve (McClelland, 2001), internal locus of control, belief in self determination, higher susceptibility to take risks, identification of window(s) of opportunity as well as strong sense of personal ability to perform are motivational factors that “pull” entrepreneurs into becoming multiple entrepreneurs (Boyd and Vozikis, 2001).

According to Vesper (2000, pg 229), researchers have found both push and pull factors to be extremely influential in motivating multiple entrepreneurs, with the pull entrepreneurs becoming more successful than the push ones, owing to the fact that individuals are more apt to form companies based on negative information rather than positive.

Another exhaustive theory of multiple entrepreneurship motivation is the internal /external theory (Shaver 2001). It is a concept that examines attributes of motivation originating from within the individual i.e. internal, or from the environment i.e. external. Internal factors are associated with pull factors, and consist of variables such as skill set, personal ability, experiences, feelings, and knowledge. On the other hand, external factors are generally associated with push factors, where they include attributes such as the economy, investors, consumers, product/service demand, and the market competition (Hunger, et al., 2002). The theory also has it that internally motivated multiple entrepreneurs proactively seek more and more ventures, while the externally motivated react to surrounding circumstances in entrepreneurial decisions and actions (Hunger, et al., 2002).

Pete Astragal and Opals (2005), proposed a model of entrepreneurial motivation, where they started with Shapero-Krueger framework, and also used self efficacy as a proxy for perceived feasibility. They borrowed from economic models (Campbell, 1992), and substituted perceived net desirability, for perceived desirability, and believed that individuals may be motivated to become multiple entrepreneurs if they believe that multiple employment is more likely than single entrepreneurship to lead to valued outcomes.

The motivation to become a multiple entrepreneur is directed by the difference between the desirability of self employment and the desirability of self being employed elsewhere (Pete Astragal and Opals, 2005). An individual’s willingness to accept a moderate, calculated risk, would be the best indicator of his/her propensity to engage in multiple entrepreneurship because not all aspiring entrepreneurs who consider themselves as effective, and who view entrepreneurship as a path to acquiring desirable outcomes intend to become multiple entrepreneurs. Therefore, to act on their perceptions of feasibility and net desirability, entrepreneurs must be willing to bear the moderate, calculated risk intrinsic to Multiple Entrepreneurship (Pete Astragal and Opals, 2005, pg 128).

Campbell (1992) is of the view that risk is a predictor to individuals’ willingness to engage in Multiple Entrepreneurship, where their decisions between operating multiple ventures and operating a single venture are a rational three-part process, whereby;

  • Entrepreneurs compare the desirability of multiple ventures with the desirability to operate a single venture
  • Entrepreneurs assess whether or not they possess the requisite knowledge, abilities and skills for performing the activities and tasks vital to becoming a multiple entrepreneur.
  • Entrepreneurs determine their ability to willingly accept the Multiple Entrepreneurialism and the inherent risks associated with it

It becomes a point of intense motivation if the entrepreneurs accept the intrinsic risks of multiple entrepreneurships, where they act on those perceptions by forming intentions and venture goals necessary for success (Campbell, 1992). After putting all those motivational considerations into account, Campbell (1992) was able to put the view so as to represent a paradigm for process-oriented entrepreneurial motivation, which facilitated a convergence of frameworks on the motivational intentions to become a multiple entrepreneur. Thus three variables were put to the study in deriving at a conclusive hypothesis i.e.

  • There is a positive link between an individual’s entrepreneurial self efficacy and his or her intentions to become a multiple entrepreneur
  • There is a positive link between an individual’s tolerance for risk and his or her intention to become a multiple entrepreneur
  • There is a positive link between an individual’s net desirability for entrepreneurship and his or her intention to become a multiple entrepreneur.
  • Finally, there is a positive connection between an individual’s net desirability for entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial self efficacy and tolerance for risk and his or her intention to become a multiple entrepreneur.

The personal Drive also acts as a motivation for an individual to run a multi ventured business (Locke and Latham, 1990). This refers to the willingness to put forth effort, both the thinking effort and the effort involved in bringing one’s ideas into reality. When multiple entrepreneurs pursue opportunity, their personal drive motivates them to take action in making it real. The personal drive consists of four aspects, namely ambition, goals, energy and stamina. Ambition influences the degree to which multiple entrepreneurs seek to create something great, important and significant when they pursue multiple opportunities, whereas the nature of the multiple entrepreneurial ambitions may include making money, or the desire to create something new, from conception to actuality (Locke and Latham, 1990).

Entrepreneurial ambition to operate multiple ventures translates into setting high goals for one and others (Locke and Latham, 1990). High multiple venture goals lead to better performance results than moderate or low goals and to achieve such high goals requires enormous energy and stamina. When goal-directed energy is sustained over time, the multiple entrepreneurs develop the confidence necessary to see the efforts come to fruition (Locke and Latham, 1990).

Shane et al (2003), on Human Resource Management Review, argue that there is a strong motivation derived from an entrepreneur’s egoistic passion, which is more precisely a passionate, selfish love of multiple entrepreneurships. The Multiple Entrepreneur’s Ego is the central motive, whereby the egoist multiple entrepreneur passionately loves the work i.e. they love the process of building many ventures and making them profitable. They are motivated to do what is actually in their own interest i.e. to do everything necessary. Surprisingly, there have been virtually no quantitative studies of the role of passion in multiple entrepreneurships (Baum et al, 2001)

The above literature have contributed significantly to research by providing a foundation to better understand entrepreneurial characteristics, as well as situational factors that motivate multiple entrepreneurs. Different motivational factors have been stated and analyzed. Different models such as push/pull, have revealed that multiple entrepreneurship can result from both positive and negative factors, while the internal external theory have revealed that the drive for multiple entrepreneurship might come from within oneself, or from extraneous circumstances. However, very little light has been shed on serial entrepreneurship, and thus forms the basis of this study

2.1. Multiple Business Entrepreneurship

Portfolio entrepreneurship, i.e. the concurrent ownership of several businesses is becoming an important theme in the small business research literature. There has been a considerably low empirical dedication to investigate the phenomenon (Sara Carter, 2003). To have a better recognition of the phenomenon, the study therefore analyses multiple entrepreneurship from a wide range of subject literatures including economic sociology, cultural anthropology and agricultural economics, based on the tendency to which the modern entrepreneurship is taking, so as to offer a deeper understanding of the motivations for such entrepreneurship and the processes associated with it.

According to Briga Hynes (2006), Portfolio entrepreneurship has become an important theme within the literature of the small businesses. It was nonetheless originally viewed as a means of reducing business risk, but has changed to being viewed as an important growth strategy when a single entrepreneur owns multiple businesses. As indicated above, the study will take an example of portfolio entrepreneurship in non-farm sectors and farm based multi activity. It will be based on a survey of almost 300 farm owners in Cambridge shire, examining the incidence of multiple entrepreneurships in the farm sector. It also assesses the multiple entrepreneurships’ contribution in respect to enterprise and employment creation

This study’s results challenge certain entrepreneurial assumptions i.e.

  • In contrast to the prevailing view within the small business literature, some farm businesses were found to generate a number of additional businesses and subsequently create considerably new opportunities for employments.
  • Secondly, new enterprise and employment creation was not confined to larger sized farm businesses in terms of hectares.
  • Finally, the outcomes challenge the orthodox assumption that the creation of employment in the small firms sector arises primarily through the move into self-employment by new entrepreneurs (Briga Hynes, 2006)

According to Peredo and Mclean (2006), the greatest achievement for a multiple entrepreneur would best be felt to the society, in which the social benefits derived from his/her contribution will not only be financially quantified, but socially quantified as well. Whereas serial entrepreneurs might be motivated by financial gain (John Elkington and Pamela Hartigan, 2008), social entrepreneurs are motivated by the gain they bring to the society as well as financial gain. However, a social entrepreneur recognizes a social problem, and uses entrepreneurial principles to organize, create and manage multiple ventures to make social change through use of blended value business models that combine revenue generating ventures with social-value-generating structure, (Peredo and Mclean 2006, pg 65).

The study explores the concept of multiple business growth as it applies to the social enterprise, examining whether social entrepreneurs have a growth agenda, how that is achieved, as well as the difficulties encountered in achieving firm growth. It takes the methodological approach of exploring the study through involvement of the completion of a series of four case studies of established social enterprises. The findings had been found to point that social multiple entrepreneurs have aspirations to grow their enterprises, where growth is considered from multiple perspectives, basically underpinned by the provision of a perceived social value (Briga Hynes, 2006).

Firm growth is basically measured from the external beneficiary perspective rather than the metrics in the internal finances. The primary challenges encountered are normally in the form of financial sourcing, staff retention, adjusting to the different duties in managing the enterprise as well as measuring the business scale and impact (Briga Hynes, 2006). The creation of social value and generation of profit are not mutually exclusive in the social enterprise, when the social entrepreneurs handle the growth challenges within a business context (pg, 57). Since the usual view of multiple entrepreneurships is to start up businesses and contribute to the economic growth, other forms of entrepreneurial activities seem to be overshadowed by that perception. Such is the case of social entrepreneurship (Certo and Miller, 2008; Shaw and Carter, 2007).

According to Doherty et al, (2009), a social entrepreneur falls perfectly into the category of multiple entrepreneurs owing to their ability to integrate a business model to the provision of a social need, .i.e. the potential to serve a “double bottom line”-blending financial and social returns simultaneously, makes such an entrepreneur an important economic and social resource.

Taking the case of Ireland, as documented in the Social Entrepreneurs Ireland (2008) it is approximated that social entrepreneurs contributes about e 2.6 billion to the Irish economy, as well as providing employment for approximately 90,000 people. There was also a survey conducted by the Irish Business Review (Irish Independent, October 2008), that indicated that in the previous one year period, 36 social entrepreneurs positively impacted directly on 17,000 persons and a further 150,000 people indirectly. According to O’ Hara (2006), lack of understanding of social entrepreneurs as well as lack of experiential research masks their positive contribution to the overall stock of enterprises in Ireland.

There have been researches carried out on the characteristics of social entrepreneurship and the motivations for social entrepreneurs to start multiple social enterprises (O’Hara, 2006). Our example of the Irish context seeks to establish how growth of ventures is perceived by social entrepreneurs, their objectives for business growth, and how those objectives are obtained. The study also focuses on the challenges faced by the entrepreneurs during enterprise development and highlight areas for consideration in policy making. That will undoubtedly leave us with a good understanding of multiplicity of ventures by one individual, and thus satisfy our study.

Therefore, characteristic to multiple entrepreneurs, the will to achieve is vital, as proven by the research carried out by Bornstein (2004), that indicated that social multiple entrepreneurs are motivated to achieve a social change due to their discomfort with the status quo. This way, the social-added-value’s focus, i.e. meeting social objectives through the creation of business models was regarded as a vital feature to differentiate social entrepreneurs (Roper and Cheney, 2005). More so, in attaining the desired social change, these entrepreneurs are considered as innovators, whereby the focus on process innovation, was considered as an important means of creating a competitive differentiation (Zahra et al 2008).

To draw a conclusive substantiation that social multiple entrepreneurs cannot be left out from the category of portfolio entrepreneurship, Zahra et al (2008, pg 118), gives us a definition that serves to put in a nutshell the several characteristics, activities and processes that the social entrepreneur encompasses, that makes them define and exploit opportunities so as to enhance social wealth by creating new ventures, or managing existing organizations in an innovative manner, which is characteristic of multiple entrepreneurship.

According to Imperatori and Ruta (2006), the success of those entrepreneurial activities requires the multiple entrepreneurs to assume a multitude of responsibilities in managing the multiple enterprises. The capability to carry out a bunch of roles requires skills and competencies in a number of functional, specialist, and process areas. I.e. the delivery of the entrepreneurial value depends on the effectiveness in managing practices which focus on multi-entrepreneurial configuration over time while achieving a financial return. In the case of the social multiple entrepreneurship, the choice of organization form is important in facilitating the achievement of social configuration and commercial return (Imperatori and Ruta 2006).

Multiple Enterprise Growth

In order to derive to a better understanding of multiple enterprise growth, we will adopt the business format of the social entrepreneurs, whereby O’Hara, (2001), developed large categories of Irish social enterprises depending on their activities, objectives, and business format.

Business Format

The format used by the social multiple entrepreneur reflects the commercial application of the social; entrepreneur. In order to understand better, we can look at an example of formats adopted mainly in Ireland. O’Hara (2001) developed five broad categories of Irish Social enterprises i.e.

  • Work integration social enterprises, associated with the integration of members of excluded groups into labor force.
  • Credit Unions
  • Enterprises providing personal and proximity social services, offering an unmet demand by current providers, i.e. deficient-demand social enterprises
  • Local development organizations
  • Housing Co-operatives.

According to O’Hara (2001), social entrepreneurs structure their business on a variety of delivery possibilities from the enterprises that operate as “good causes”, who have clear charitable objectives, to the opposite end of the spectrum consisting of enterprises that function as commercial businesses with a social purpose. On the same hand, Shaw and Carter (2007), classified social enterprises into three forms of business namely;

  • Not for profit
  • For profit
  • A hybrid form, i.e. the firm operates to create employment and generate revenue which is then reinvested back to the business.

Such multiple business structures can be independently owned by a single entrepreneur, or owned by Irish public partnership. All in all, the multiple business formats should be flexible and facilitate the achievement of the vision and objectives they were set for. This calls for the Social Multiple Entrepreneur to decide on how best to combine businesses’ efficiencies, while achieving social impact, and therefore end up with a double -bottom line achievement (O’Hara, 2001). However, the social multiple entrepreneur, is faced with the challenge of aligning their social enterprises formats to address and satisfy the changing needs of their stakeholders , at the same time maintaining a revenue reserve to sustain the enterprises.

In order to realize growth in multiple enterprises, the entrepreneur must realize that growth is a multi-faceted phenomenon, mostly linked with the firms’ successes, survival and achievement of the laid down multiple ventures’ goals (Kinsella et al, 1994). Researches carried out have shown that given the heterogeneity of growth of small firms, it is not expected that all small firms wish to grow their businesses or experience the same challenges in the achievement of firm growth (Donohue and wryer , 2005).

Social multiple entrepreneurs, are according to Certo and Miller, (2008) driven by a vision that whatever they are doing provides social value and enhances the well being of the targeted group, thereby deriving a plausible conclusion that social multiple entrepreneurs are motivated by the need to achieve. However, in achieving their vision, they are challenged in areas where they operate in commercial markets but yet view themselves as the periphery, or disagree with some of the requirements of the market place (pg 345). This creates hardships in deriving business objectives which align with the core social culture of the business (Shaw and Carter, 2007).

According to Doherty et al (2009), since many social multiple entrepreneurs have a multi-stakeholder focus, the responsibilities of setting business objectives becomes difficult and may require a trade off between social and commercial commitments. Bornstein (2004), discovered that the forms of objectives that the social multiple entrepreneur had for their businesses reflected their strategic intent, and further indicated the broader strategic vision of their businesses.

Where social multiple entrepreneurs choose to capitalize on social value, more informal strategies are adopted which sometimes neglects the commercial perspectives (Doherty, et al, 2009), where it is suggested that it is the wrong view of social multiple entrepreneurship, since social and commercial agendas are not mutually exclusive if effective strategies are to be adopted in achieving multiple enterprises’ objectives (Darby and Jenkins, 2006). Social multiple entrepreneurs must translate their objectives into a workable multiple business strategies characterized by measurable sustainability performance results, if they are to effectively attain the dream of the businesses, which should be based on the establishment of a core competency (Imperatori and Ruta, 2006).

According to Lead beater (1997), achieving multiple business growth and ensuring their sustainability, the multiple entrepreneur must develop the businesses and manage resources with commercial and social remit, whereby achieving the growth changes the internal context of the enterprises and consequently requires a change in the responsibilities of the entrepreneur. This may need designation of the main responsibilities or the externally sourcing assistance to operate and develop the multiple businesses (pg 223).

Among the factors of success to any business, employees form a considerably important part (Sagas, 2000). In that same case, employees are important resource and enabler in the successful achievement of the multiple entrepreneurs’ vision. Such a successful achievement of the multiple firms is in their ability to attract and retain the correct blend of complementary skills to those of the social multiple entrepreneur (Sagas, 2000).

According to Bornstein (2004), retaining staff in multiple entrepreneurial setting is challenging, especially to social entrepreneurs, owing to the lack/shortage of financial resources, inability to guarantee employment security or give attractive salaries. They also face the challenge of incentivizing staff through non-financial awards, and instead choose to use charisma in enlisting the commitment of others in the absence of financial compensation (Roper and Cheney, 2005). In the Ireland’s case, the research found that volunteers were common in social multiple entrepreneurships especially in the early development stages but recommended that overdependence in volunteers should not be regarded as a long term strategy (O’Hara, 2001).

A multiple entrepreneur must enter into new and innovative partnerships with other entrepreneurs and government agencies to source for revenue and new ideas, i.e. the use of networks for new enterprises, getting markets, customer information, realizing new and competitive opportunities, providing introductions to possible funding sources as well as in generating local support for the enterprises (Shaw and Carter, 2007). Participating in networks adds to the exposure of the multiple enterprises to the broader external stakeholder context of funding and support agencies which are vital from the viewpoint of multiple entrepreneurial success measurement, (Darby and Jenkins, 2006).

2.2. Content-Base Theories of Motivation

According to Sara Carter (1998), the content theories are also referred to as “needs-theories”, and are based on the individuals. In the context of multiple entrepreneurships, they explain why their needs keep changing overtime, therefore focusing on the specific factors that motivate them. There are four major content theories of motivation developed by theorists that try to explain why the needs of an individual should be taken into consideration in understanding what motivates multiple entrepreneurs. If these needs are not satisfied or met, then it is not likely that multiple entrepreneurs will be motivated to carry out their ventures and meet their goals and objectives (Churchill and Lewis, 1983). The theories are as follows;

  1. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory
  2. Hertzberg’s two Factor Theory,
  3. Alderfer’s ERG Theory, and
  4. McClelland’s 3 Needs Theory

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory

According to Sara Carter (1998), the theory developed by Ibrahim Maslow in 1943, is based on the fact that it is the unfulfilled needs that leads to motivate entrepreneurs. It also gives an understanding to why the needs of the multiple entrepreneurs keep changing over time and the importance of identifying what each and every individual is after in terms of their needs, by giving the insight to what exactly are the individual needs that that must be met in order to motivate them. Maslow identified five levels of needs as;

  • Self actualization level, which is the highest level, i.e. level 5
  • Self esteem level, i.e. level 4
  • Social belonging and love needs level i.e. level 3
  • Safety level, i.e. level 2, and
  • Physiology level i.e. level 1

According to Raven J, (2001), the five levels of needs above, must be satisfied if the entrepreneur is to be motivated. Multiple entrepreneurs’ motivations are therefore driven by the existence of those unsatisfied needs, meaning that unless they are fulfilled; their needs are motivated to do so. The argument is that in order to motivate the multiple entrepreneurs, the first higher level of needs have to be satisfied before the next levels of needs, and only when the lower level of needs are satisfied will the next level of needs act as a motivator, (Raven J, 2001). If we are to use a simple example of a person dying of hunger, his first motivation will be to fulfill his hunger by earning a salary, but after satisfying his basic needs, it will no longer act as a motivator, and that only the second level of needs such as safe working conditions will then motivate him. In conclusion, Maslow pointed out that satisfying the individual’s needs is a step-by-step process, that begin from the lowest to the highest, only satisfying each level at a time.

Hertzberg’s Two Factor Theory

Churchill and Lewis (1983), describes the theory as a theory focusing on the individual needs, whereby Hertzberg identified two separate groups of factors with strong impact on motivation. Hygiene factors were his first group, consisting of such factors as working conditions, supervision quality, status, salary, company policies, as well as administration. This theory could be applied to the multiple entrepreneurships’ setting in two ways, i.e. the entrepreneur may want to motivate his workers, or he could be motivated as an employer.

This way, hygiene factors seemed to have taken the centre stage, where feelings of dissatisfaction negatively affected performance, and fail to motivate the people involved (pg 222). For instance, without good and safe working surroundings, it is not good to offer a task because the chances of motivating the one carrying out the task are slim. The second group of factors is called the motivating factors, consisting of factors such as recognition, responsibility, achievement, promotions etc, where Hertzberg believed that the motivating factors satisfies individuals and consequently motivate them, but the hygiene factor has to be there in order to fully satisfy them.

Alderfer’s ERG Theory

The ERG Theory bases on the needs of an individual, where it was proposed to basically overcome the limitations of the Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory (Rosa et al, 1996). It is in a form of hierarchy as well, but only comprises of three levels of individual needs identified as;

  • Existence, i.e. physiological and safety needs
  • Relatedness i.e. social and external esteem needs
  • Growth i.e. internal esteem and self actualization needs

Rosa et al (1996), commented that existence, which is the first level of needs, have the first priority over the rest two levels of needs. Put in the context of the multiple entrepreneurs, the order of the needs may not be exactly the same for all entrepreneurs, and could thus change depending on the individual. It is not always that the entrepreneurs are motivated to satisfy the lower level first, so as to proceed to the next, as in Maslow’s case. A proper example in case would be to have an entrepreneur motivated to operate certain ventures because of his/her need for recognition, rather than for a safer working condition. The levels of needs here can apply simultaneously.

Since multiple entrepreneurs are at times frustrated in their efforts to operate multiple ventures, i.e. frustration regression process, they may look to satisfy the lower level that seems to be much easier to operate in order to motivate them. This will satisfy them for the moment, with the hope that they could satisfy the higher level in the future. In such situations, it becomes vital for the entrepreneur to identify this, and help them to satisfy the lower level of needs in order to motivate them (West head and Wright, 1996).

McClelland’s 3 Needs Theory

According to Robson et al (1993), the theory is also referred to as the Acquired Theory, or the Learned Theory, developed by McClelland in 1961, which is based on needs of the individuals as well. The theory explains the fact that motivation of an individual primarily results from three dominant things namely;

  • The need for achievement
  • The need for power
  • The need for affiliation

In the multiple entrepreneurial contexts, Robson et al (1993) argues that the entrepreneurs’ motivation is dominated by the three needs.

  • The need for achievement- this means the extent to which an entrepreneur wants to carry out multiple ventures that are difficult and challenging, whereby they endeavor to achieve goals that are challenging but realistic. Such multiple entrepreneurs really want to succeed and have positive feedback, avoiding the low-risk and high-risk situations, and preferring to work alone on multiple ventures. That way really tend to become motivated to perform the challenging tasks they set before themselves (Robson et al 1993).
  • The Need for Power- An entrepreneur with the need for power is motivated to lead the others in the markets. Such power may be personal power, or institutional power (Robson et al, 1993). Therefore, multiple entrepreneurs with the need for power will want to direct and influence their counter parts in the market, especially given the influencing power they gain from operating several ventures concurrently. These entrepreneurs tend to feel de-motivated when they are unable to lead others, and sometimes organize the efforts of others for the success of their ventures (Robson et al, 1993).
  • The Need for Affiliation-According to Robson et al (1993), multiple entrepreneurs with the need for affiliation basically look for good, friendly inter-personal relationships with others. Such entrepreneurs feel motivated when they are accepted and liked by others, and thus endeavor to maintain a good rapport with the people through trust creation, understanding and capitalizing more on cooperation than competition

2.3. Process Theories of Motivation

According to Robson et al (1993), these theories are goal setting theory of motivation, reinforcement theory of motivation, and finally the expectancy theory of motivation.

Goal-Setting Theory of Motivation

This theory applies in the multiple entrepreneurs’ context in the sense that goals or intentions motivate entrepreneurs to meet higher performance levels, where they are more likely to target attainable goals, as well as allowing themselves to set goals that can increase their commitment to goals that are more difficult to attain Robson et al (1993). Current researchers stress that setting goals is not the only source of motivation, and that goal setting programs such as Management by Objectives (MBO), fails because organizations fail to consider the need for rein forcers. Multiple entrepreneurs therefore need to reinforce progress toward the goal, maintain the multiple ventures’ performance at or above the goal, as well as strive to achieve the levels of performance that are above the goal (Robson et al 1993).

Reinforcement Theory of Motivation

Robson et al (1993), argues that reinforcement theory is a behaviorist application on the basis that entrepreneurs are not driven by motivation, but their environment. The rein forcers, or positive outcomes, are what makes an entrepreneur’s behavior more likely to become a habit (of operating many ventures concurrently) than exception. They work best when they are immediate, sincere and specific to a venture, where the desired outcomes can be realized through organizational behavior modification, as well as a realistic approach to change the entrepreneurial behavior based on the market research.

Expectancy Theory

The theory attempts to explain behavior in terms of an individual’s goals and choices and the expectation of achieving the objectives (Robson et al 1993). In the context of multiple entrepreneurships, the probability of an entrepreneur acting in a specific manner will increase when the entrepreneur links it strongly with a given, attractive result (Robson et al, 1993). This theory states that motivation depends on the following three variables, namely;

  • Attractiveness, i.e. the entrepreneur perceives the outcomes as desirable
  • Performance-Reward linkage, i.e. the entrepreneur perceives a desired outcome will result from a certain degree of performance, and finally
  • Effort-Performance linkage, whereby the entrepreneur believes that a certain amount of effort will lead to performance

2.4. Measure Instruments for Need of Achievement

Brief Overview

David C. McClelland’s and his associates investigated achievement motivation, in an attempt to explain how individuals express their preferences for particular outcomes-a general problem motivation, whereby the need to achieve refers to an entrepreneur’s preference for success under conditions of competition. This was made easy by Mc Cleland’s Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), a series of pictures that subjects were asked to interpret through writing stories about them. Using the results based on the TAT, it was found out that people in a society can be grouped into two groups namely; high achievers and low achievers, based on their scores on what Mc Cleland called “N-Ach” (Shaver and Scott 1991).

From the tests that have later been done, there are indications that the A-Ach scores increases with a rise in occupational level, whereby entrepreneurs, managers, and businessmen,( who are not gamblers, and who accept risk only to the degree they believe their personal contributions will make a difference in the final outcome) are invariably high scorers (Gong, 2003). More investigations into the characteristics of the high achievers have indicated that accomplishment on the work represents an end in itself, where monetary rewards serve as an index of this accomplishment

According to Hitt et al (2006), differences linked to individual and to national accomplishment depend on the presence or absence of a motivation to achieve, in addition to economic resources or the infusion of financial assistance. High achievers can be viewed as satisfying a need for self actualization through accomplishments as a result of particular knowledge, experience, and environment through which they have lived.


The techniques used to measure N-Ach, N-Afill, and N-Pow, takes into account Murray’s model of human needs and motivational processes, that introduces the idea of “situation tests” and multi-rater or multi-method assessments. It identifies the significance of need for achievement, power and affiliation, placing them into the context of an integrated motivational model (Hitt et al, 2006).

According to Hitt et al (2006), trait-based personality theory has it those high-level competencies like initiative, creativity and leadership, like the one possessed by most multiple entrepreneurs, can be assessed using “Internally Consistent Measures”, whereas Mc Cleland measures has it that such competencies are hard and demanding activities which will neither be developed or displayed unless individuals are carrying out activities they care about i.e. activities that they are strongly motivated to undertake. It is the cumulative number of independent, but cumulative and substitutable, components of competence they bring to bear while seeking to carry out these activities that will determine their success (Hitt et al 2006).

Accordingly, the N-Ach, N-Aff and N-Pow scoring systems simply count the number of components of competence people bring to bear, at the same time carrying out activities they are strongly motivated to carry out. The most important aspect in this measurement is to first assess people’s abilities and what they care about, thereby ruling out such things as creativity in any general sense. It is to measure ones creativity in relation to what? (Hitt et al 2006)

2.5. Conclusion of Literature Review

Any multiple entrepreneurs, whether social, serial or any other, has a distinctive drive, that he/she seeks to satisfy throughout the formation, success/failure and closure of the ventures in which they are involved in (O’Hara, 2006). For instance the social multiple entrepreneur, symbolize a diverse group, which are part of a wider social economy, where they are value-oriented opportunists who bring about social change through establishing different enterprises (O’ Hara, 2006).

Sara Carter (2003), on the other hand refers to multiple social entrepreneurs as people who recognized, evaluated and exploited opportunities that resulted in the creation of social value. Such a definition puts into consideration the most common characteristic of all multiple entrepreneurs, whereby emphasis on opportunity recognition is regarded as key, and the willingness to achieve is regarded as the driving force towards successful multiple entrepreneurships (Sara Carter, 2003).

The Interview Procedure

The following questionnaire, by Kiko Romeo (1990), was adopted to collect information about the motivation factors for people to open and run multiple businesses, on college students, and the information that will be used to rate individual’s commitment to withstand the intricacies associated with running businesses for the general betterment of economy. The questionnaires took three main dimensions namely the number of actions, individual commitment, and strategic orientation, all of which was to be assessed and combined into an individual score would reflect the overall extent of involvement in business startups.

The Motivation Questionnaire

According to Johnson (1990), the draft questionnaire adopted is a 6 page survey, administered in person-by a researcher to the individual respondent. It contained items including a mix of yes/no, multiple choice and as short answer questions. The questionnaire was divided into three parts. The first part was for collection of information about the individual’s overall involvement with the business they intended to operate. This part of the questionnaire was to act as a filter to determine whether or not the individual had undertaken the relevant preparedness to run a business

Part one and two were to be administered to all respondent individuals. Part three was the longest section and pertained exclusively to advocacy work, in support of gender sensitive and gender transformative responses to multiplicity of businesses ran by a single entrepreneur. Part three of the survey was to be administered to those individuals whose answers in part two qualified them to complete the full survey.

The questionnaire was also accompanied by a 2-page scoring sheet for use by the researcher who administered the questionnaire to the individual respondent, which provided instructions that guided the researcher in making the assessment of the different dimensions of interests; individual commitment to business, and strategic orientation.

Also provided to the researcher was a guideline on advocacy, which was “A Guidance on Advocacy for Gender-Sensitive and Gender-Transformative to multiple entrepreneurships which would see a better economy” (Johnson 1990). It explored key concepts related to advocacy and gender-sensitive/gender transformative responses to multiple entrepreneurships. The guidance note was designed to assist the researcher in determining whether the examples of advocacy actions reported by respondent individuals fell within the parameters of advocacy as understood by the Back-Up Gender Component (Johnson 1990).

Piloting the Questionnaire

The following process had been proposed for piloting the advocacy questionnaire in Sweden;

  • Identify one or two conglomerates in Sweden, which are known to be involved with advocacy efforts in support of gender sensitive/gender-transformative responses to multiple entrepreneurships. Ideally this would include one major conglomerate whose major shareholder worked at a national level and a smaller business owner (SME), without a national profile but whose economic effects were felt. On both cases make sure to include their types of businesses, age, gender and the other business interests they each have.
  • Secure agreement from these organizations to assist with the piloting process. The organizations should understand that that would require a few hours of time on the part of an organizational representative to help with a research development process, in short, it is asking them for a favor.
  • Determine the appropriate individual respondent. The questionnaire should ideally be completed by someone who is either responsible for, or runs multiple businesses, e.g. the director. The research process was unlikely to be successful if the survey was completed by someone who is too junior, never had a single idea of a business, or whose responsibilities are not related to business development e.g. the procurements officer in a branch of the conglomerates.
  • Make an appointment with the business organization, to visit and administer the questionnaire. When administering the questionnaire to the respondent, they were to go question, by question, and recording all the answers, and to pay particular attention in any instances where;
  1. The respondent failed to understand the meaning of the question
  2. The wording of the question was ambiguous, and could be interpreted in a different way
  3. A question seemed to repeat something that was already covered earlier
  4. Any other points of confusion, or instances where something simply failed to work

After administering the questionnaire, the scoring instructions contained on the final two pages of the tool were to be followed, whereby during the scoring process one was to pay particular attention to the following;

  1. Do you feel like the answers provided by the individuals give you enough information to make the assessments you are asked to make?
  2. Are the rating scales for business commitment and entrepreneurial strategic orientation easy to understand and to use?
  3. Does the advocacy guideline provide useful clarification?
  4. As far as you can tell, do you feel that the final score is an accurate reflection of the situation in the business organization you visited?

3.0 (1) Questionnaire and Results

Owing to the cosmopolitanism of United States, it was found out that the need to achieve in that country was the highest against UK, Australia, Canada and the rest of the world (Kiko Romeo, 2000)

Taken on a global scale, the needs to achieve in different countries were represented as follows:

Entrepreneurial motivation globally 1

3.1 Use of the Interview Data

The questionnaire’s data were taken for use in this study where it was incorporated with the research discussed below. This study takes the example of the predictive validity of Thematic Appreciation Test, referred to as TAP, throughout the study, and Cesarec-Markes Personal Scheme, referred to as CMPS, throughout this study. In that respect, self reporting questionnaires and projective tests have been used and research in multiple entrepreneurial management that is involved with the need for achievement. This research bases on the capability of certain individuals to start and operate a line of businesses, with objective tests such CMPs and TAT used to show how predictive validity exist when one ventures in such kind of entrepreneurship (Durand and Shea, 1974). A longitudinal design was adopted, with psychological measurements of need to achieve taken before the entrepreneurial decision was made. The period between the psychological measurement and the data collection for the longitudinal study was 11 years.

3.2. Interview Aim

The earlier study on the paper has indicated the need for achievement as a factor for business prosperity, as well as indicated the importance of the achievement motive for economic development in society (Mc Cleland). This is in spite of the questions raised about the connection between achievement and economic growth (Gilleard, 1989), and the contrary appraisal that the connection seems well established (Johnson 1990). To realize links between entrepreneurial activity and personal characteristic, such as need to achieve, puts pressure on the measurement methods, as well as the validity of the methods in the endeavor to understand how serial an entrepreneur can be, and what would drive them to become so (Johnson, 1990).

According to Caird (1993), there have been two paradigms for measuring techniques, which have been important in the developing test instruments, i.e. the impressionistic school, which promotes the use of projective tests, and the psychometric school that use objective tests. They are objective to the extent that determination of points is done in advance with an elaborated guide, and is not dependent on an individual’s interpretation, whereas using a projective test has the subject under investigation give his or her expression of standardized, unstructured material, that leaves the experimenter to interpret the expression (Caird, 1993)

An earlier, more elaborate TAT, was the test that was originally used in establishing the link between entrepreneurship and need for achievement, which was developed for use in clinical work (Morgan and Murray 1935). It consist of pictures in black and white of people and different objects in different settings, where its roots in psychoanalytical theory, argues that people tend to project their own feelings, needs and motives into the picture, i.e. the projective hypothesis (McClelland et al 1953). According to Murray (1943, pg 1), the biggest benefit obtained from using TAT is that it exposes the underlying inhibited tendencies which the subject would not be willing to admit because he/she is unconscious of them.

Going by Atkinson and McClelland’s (1948) who developed Murray’s clinically used TAT for research purposes, and which were able to measure the motive’s strength, we will be able to draw a line between why some entrepreneurs would be likely to be more risk averse than others, why some would be attracted more to the serial entrepreneurial tendencies than others, etc. The intensity of instructions was in this experiment varied to different groups before they wrote their TAT stories, with one group given achievement oriented instructions, the second group given neutral, and the third given relaxed instructions. The special kind of thoughts found in the achievement group, and not found in the relaxed and neutral groups, was used as an operational definition of achievement motivation (McClelland et al, 1953). This study uses longitudinal design to examine CMPS and TAT’s in measuring need for achievement by entrepreneurs in their entrepreneurial activities of starting new businesses.

3.3. Limitations

Although the TAT procedure had been designed to produce unanimity between theoretical definition, method of measurement, and operational definition, it has been criticized on two different levels; concerning its psychometric standards, and its general administration use (Gjesme 1970, pg 4). It has been felt that the projective procedure is complicated and time consuming in terms of both its administration and scoring, and many researchers opting for the use of objective tests in stead (pg, 3).

According to Klinger (1966), the TAT’s psychometric standards has been criticized as having a low predictive validity and poor reliability, but it has been adopted for this research on the basis of its impressionistic school, and should therefore be judged by standards from the impressionistic school which according to McClelland (1999) implies creativity which is ideal for multiple entrepreneurs.

The use of questionnaires in this kind of research is criticized for use to examine the needs for achievement, where the biggest blow to the method bases on the way they can be biased because subjects might make their choices on the basis of what is considered socially acceptable, or creating ideological pictures of themselves, or in correspondence to their own images. The questions could also be fixed in predetermined areas, too specific, or lacking in nuances, all of which would limit the information they can give (McClelland, 1990).

McClelland (1990), argues that it could be possible that objective tests have been developed and used to measure the need for achievement because of the way use of the projective tests have been criticized. In a case in record where questionnaires were used was in the Mukherjee Sentence Completion Test (SCT), carried out in India and that found a relatively higher achievement values for successful entrepreneurs in India than the non successful (Pandey and Tewary, 1979).

Research Hypothesis

The hypothesis to be tested was, “measurement of n achievement (TAT), and need for achievement (CMPS) have a predictive validity for the multiple entrepreneurial activity, i.e. start of new businesses

4.1. Data Collection


The data for longitudinal study were according to Hansemark, (1998) collected eleven years after the psychological measurement of n achievement (TAT) and need for achievement (CMPS), by an examination of two separate public-authority registered companies for the presence of the individuals concerned. One register had information on limited companies as well as the other information about other forms of business companies e.g. trading companies, limited partnerships, sole proprietorships etc. The registers were examined by civil servants at the public authority, and the results forwarded to the researcher in writing, articulating whether each person had started a new business or many businesses during the eleven year period.

The time between measuring the personal characteristics and the data collection for the longitudinal study could affect the results if for instance the periods were too short or some special event e.g. if major economic depression took place. Since data for the study were collected eleven years after measuring the personal characteristics, the individuals could be considered considerably settled in a working career or in establishing new business (es) (Hansemark 1998). During the eleven years, the economic conditions must have had its ups and downs, therefore giving the research adequate period for sensible judgment because it followed the expected phases of economic development, (Hansemark 1998).

The psychological TAT and CMPS were measured eleven years before the longitudinal study data were collected. According to Hansemark (1998), the aim of the initial study (before-after design with experimental and control group) was to show whether, an entrepreneurship program in Sweden could increase the subject’s need to achieve. The time between pre and post-test in the initial study had been seven months, where the participants in the experimental entrepreneurship program test choose freely, without any psychological test and participation was regulated by official admission rules.

The initial study was described to the subjects as a test of their creativity, and a broad test of personality. The voluntary nature made the responses confidential. Standardized procedures were used to control the procedure for measurements. All tests were performed in a similar milieu, in a group setting, and by the same experimenter to minimize the margin of error, and finally pauses were kept constant (Hansemark, 1998)


The sample included of;

  • Individuals (n=91) with high school education, or its equivalent
  • The experimental group (n=25), which had attended an entrepreneurship program
  • The control group (n=66), consisting of two higher education classes

The control group was chosen to be as identical (to match) as possible with the experimental group, and consisted also of two subgroups selected on the basis of similarities in educational level, age, and area of study. Those individuals in the control group had not taken part in any entrepreneurship program

Given the national census data, it was a fairly well distributed in terms of gender, (men=>31, women=35) in the control group, whereas in the experimental group, there was an over-representation of male participants (men=17, women=8.

During the carrying out of the psychological test (post test), the number of men averaged at (n=48) and women at (n=43), and their average age was 22 years. There was a statistically significant change towards higher n achievement between post tests and pre-test in the experimental group, however, there was no such change in the control group. Therefore, the change in the experimental group made the measurement values from the post test to be used in the study

There was a total of 72 individuals who participated in the post-test of n achievements (CMPS, N=71). All 91 from the initial study were examined in the longitudinal study.

There was a difference, the attrition of 20 individuals (CMPS, TAT=19). The proportion of those who started a new business was about similar in the attrition group, as in the remaining part (30% and 28.6% respectively)


According to McClelland (1990), the individuals could show achievement in different situations, therefore, the pictures chosen for the test could be relevant to the content validity of the test. Verroff et al (1960) had also commented that the pictures should not be biased towards a particular sphere. This study had six pictures with different themes, where none included pictures with heroes in extreme conditions. Since TAT was initially developed using male participants only, both male and female subjects involved a specific problem of choice.

The important question was whether the individuals in the pictures were to be male or female. The conception by the subjects of what behaviors are appropriate for the hero could have a greater influence on the production of achievement themes that the degree of the identification of the story teller with the hero (McClelland, 1990). To counter that, the different pictures used were chosen to match with each other, as much as was practically possible, in terms of both character depiction and activity e.g. one picture that showed tow men working, was changed to a picture of two women working.

The test subjects were to write a story for each of the pictures with the assistance of four questions and five minutes were given to write about each picture. Stories were coded on the basis of the presence of an achievement image (AIM), i.e. an image of a goal-related achievement.

According to Atkinson (1958), in cases of researches involving stories with AIM, the appearance of special phenomena, such as instrumental activity (I) e.g. pictures (as in this research) are counted. The sum is called n achievement. A maximum of 11 points could be allocated for each story. Coding the stories was done in accord with Smith and Feld’s (1958) instructions with only slight modifications

According to Smith and Feld (1958), the correlation between the experimenter’s judgment and the expert judgment of the practice material vary between 0.80 and 0.99, lower when coding rapidly, with an average of 0.92. in the same way, McClelland (1990) discovered the same, with only a slight difference that the correlation between well experienced scorers is to be between 0.85 and 0.95.

In the coding course, individuals were anonymous for the person coding the stories. A reliability analysis (as an analysis of the test-retest values of the control group in the initial study on which this study was based) over a seven month period, showed a correlation of 0.56 i.e. n=51, men=25, women=26.


The Cesarec-Marke Personal Scheme (CMPS) includes 11 subscales, of which achievement is one. Each sub-scale usually has 15 questions, for a total of 165 questions. The test construction proceeded from both Murray’s (1939) theory and Cesarec & Marke (1973) theory. Questions from Edwards (1959), were used, where an example of the question in the achievement subscale was “do you often think of making some great achievement?” where the subject answers “yes” or “no”, and scoring done according to a manual, which take to account age, sex, and the norm group (adult in higher education).

Analysis of reliability of the achievement scale in CMPS, when test was constructed showed a split-half coefficient for the norm group of adults in higher education (men 0.73{n=134}, women 0.76 {n=92}, and men and women 0.75 {n=226}). An analysis of the reliability ± as an analysis of the value of the test-retest of the control group in the initial study on which this study was based ± over a period of seven months, showed a correlation of 0.75 (n=50,men=24, women=26).

4.2. Results and Analysis

Table of Results

The table below shows t-test for individuals who have/have not started new businesses (Indicated as start of a new B.), in relation to n achievement (TAT, n=72) and need for achievement (CMPS, n=71)

Start of a new B. n x SD t p

TAT Experimental Group yes 12 9.833 3.81 0.65 0.267

No 7 11.857 7.69

Control Group Yes 8 6.000 4.243 1.07 0.155

No 45 7.778 4.908

CMPS Experimental Group Yes 12 6.333 1.670 0.25 0.403

No 7 6.143 1.574

Control Group Yes 8 6.125 1.246 0.94 0.182

No 44 5.636 1.831

  • The study showed a correlation between n achievement (TAT) and need for achievement (CMPS) to be zero (r=0.0733, n=71). Divided into two subgroups, men (r=0.0461, n=39) and women (r=0.1892, n=32), there are also very low correlations.
  • The two different pictures used for women resulted to 38% of their achievement stories (25% for the equivalent pictures for men). The four pictures used for both men and women represented 69% of their achievement stories. A variance analysis for the pre-test of n achievement (TAT) and need for achievement (CMPS) showed no considerable difference between the experimental and the control groups, or between men and women.
  • Among the 91 individuals examined, 26 had started a new business; this is equivalent to 28.6%. In the experimental group 48% had started a new business, compared with 21.2% in the control group, a difference that is statistically significant (_2=5.130, p=0.012).
  • Divided into men and women, there was a certain overrepresentation among men, i.e. 33.3% had started a new venture, while the corresponding figure for women stood at 23.3%, the gender difference was not statistically significant, but the tendency to want to achieve is , in this study.
  • Among individuals with strong n achievement .i.e. TAT, 11 out of 35 individuals started a new venture (31.4%), whereas the group with weaker n achievement (below the median) had 24.3% start a new venture.
  • Looking at the result of the objective test (CMPS), the group with stronger need for achievement (above median), 9 out of 25 individuals, i.e. 36% started a new business. The tendency in the difference between TAT and CMPS has no statistical significance in this study
  • The t-test results show that the mean values for need for achievement (CMPS) were higher in both the experimental and the control groups for individuals who had started new businesses, i.e. they had a higher level of need for achievement.
  • Regarding the n achievement (TAT), the mean values in both the experimental and the control groups were lower for people who had started a new business, than for those who had not. The connection between n achievement (TAT) and start of a new business is statistically insignificant, but the connection between the need for achievement (CMPS) and start of a new business is statistically significant.

Therefore we can hypothesize that it is individuals with a higher need for achievement who more frequently start more businesses.

  • When the individuals were divided into gender-specific groups, the results of the TAT showed that women who have started a new business possess a lower n achievement than those who have not started a new business. Their n achievement was also lower than that of men who have started a new business. Men who had started a new business have a higher level of n achievement, than men who have not started a new business.
  • Analysis of variance for comparing the four groups classified in terms of gender and the dependent variable i.e. men/start, men/not-start, women start/women-not start, do not show any significant difference.

4.3. Discussion and Literature Review

The intention of the research was to show the predictive need for achievement validity on the entrepreneurial activity; start of new businesses. Going by the judgment of the research findings, they support the hypothesis that need for achievement, as measured with the CMPS has predictive validity in respect to the entrepreneurial activity of starting a new business. Individuals with high need for achievement do more frequently start a new business than individuals with a low need for achievement. The results indicate that a relationship exist between the need for achievement (CMPS) and the dependent variable “start of a new business”, which brings to conclusion that CMPS has reticent predictive validity

There is a distinct difference between TAT and CMPS when individual measurement values are compared. Pearson’s correlation coefficient between TAT and CMPS is zero (r=0.733, n=71), a correlation that clearly indicate that the two measures can have an adequate ground to draw a conclusively evident result. As the result had shown that the experimental group in the initial source study to have a significantly higher frequency of starting new businesses than the control group did, the control group which had been chosen to match the experimental group, can be taken to match the general mental picture in the minds of entrepreneurs, especially those in small and medium sized (SME’s) ventures. This is because both groups had been chosen to match in terms of education levels, age, and area of study (only that the control group had not taken part in any entrepreneurship program).

It would also be in order, to state that while gratifying for the people responsible for the entrepreneurship program, it would be possible that participation in a program which had been designed to stimulate new business ventures in the future, would lead to an increased number of businesses owned by one entrepreneur. Women indicated an increased interest in starting new ventures, in spite of the fact that men who have started new ventures had a higher n achievement (TAT).

The results indicated that no choice of pictures, or how the scoring of n achievement could explain the gender-specific difference, which explains why women who had started new businesses had a lower n achievement than those who had not started one. It is likely that the results reflected some structural differences in the achievement motive of men and women, as they become noticeable due to the longitudinal study design. The difference is however important if we have to answer the question of what motivates multiple entrepreneurships

There was no gender specific difference in measuring the achievement motive in the objective test (CMPS). Both women and men who have started new ventures have a higher need for achievement, than their counterparts who have not started any. This means that, If the personal characteristics of already established multiple entrepreneurs were to be measured, two assumptions would have to be made; firstly, the personal characteristics of already established multiple entrepreneurs would have to be stable over time. Measuring long established multiple entrepreneurs, or after the start of new ventures, would have to assume that the personal characteristics would not change under the influence of the multiple entrepreneurial activity.

However, going by McClelland (1990), the need for achievement is considered as a learnt characteristic. Believing that personal characteristics would not change in social context engendered by multiple entrepreneurial activities, such as starting new ventures would be considerably reasonable. Furthermore, we have already found out in our earlier study that research has conclusively indicated that personal characteristics such as the need for achievement do change (McClelland 1990, Hansemark, 1998).

Also, research on already established multiple entrepreneurs’ demands that the personal characteristics measured have a predictive validity, i.e. they should be a part of the individual personality before the multiple entrepreneurial activities, which could then be considered to have a significant value for the multiple entrepreneurial decisions. Although the research findings show that successful multiple entrepreneurs have certain characteristics, such as higher n achievement, than unsuccessful multiple entrepreneurs, it does not show that n achievement is important for multiple entrepreneurships.

There are two limitations of the study to comment about; the first one being that the companies that started and terminated during the first five years after the psychological characteristics in the initial study were measured, were not registered in the centralized register where the information for follow-up study was found. Therefore, some companies could be missing from the data used. Attrition could also be problematic, but in the attrition group, the distributions of the individuals who had started new businesses, and those who had not was on a same level with the distribution for the group that continued taking part in the study.

The second limitation is in the restrictive manner through which the study defines entrepreneurial activity, which presumes that to start a new business is entrepreneurial, without considering the fact that many businesses are founded to provide work for the founders, rather than to for instance basically exploit an innovation (Kirtzner, 1996). Johnson (1990), found a positive relationship between need for achievement and entrepreneurship, whereby TAT has some degree of construct validity, and that there are indications that it predicts a variety of motivational entrepreneurial behaviors. That information leads us to the practical implications in Small and Medium Sized enterprises.

5.0 Conclusion

According to McMillan (1986, pg 241), studying habitual entrepreneurship so that we may understand the behavior of small businesses and small business owners is vital in helping policy and decision makers and those responsible for developments of small and medium (SMEs) business sector. Starr and Bygrave (1991) commented that multiple business entrepreneurs are called habitual, repeat, serial or portfolio entrepreneurs whereby it becomes difficult to make comparative analysis.

Going by Donckel et al (1987, pg.48), multiple business starters are entrepreneurs who, after having started a first company, set up to start another. On a narrower approach, they are people involved in at least two businesses. Hall (1995, pg 220), argues that in the small business context, starting or buying a new business may not be significantly different processes, and may not be capable of being differentiated by owners.

According to Hall (1995, pg 220), two types of habitual entrepreneurs exist, namely;

  • The owners who own one business after another; Previous businesses may have been closed, sold, or had legal outcome, thereby making those kinds of businesses serial.
  • Secondly, there are those entrepreneurs that are habitual owners, owning more than one business at a time, thereby making them portfolio entrepreneurs

Novice entrepreneurs are considered by Hall (1995, p.221) as a stage rather than a category because all potential serial and portfolio entrepreneurs come from novice owners (single business/shot entrepreneurs). In spite of the many researches that have been carried out, Scott and Rosa (1996) contends that the multiple entrepreneurship phenomenon has proven difficult to capture and approach empirically because it exists beyond statistics and databases. Analysis of interlocking directorships tends to be in the context of business elites’ study and solely concern corporate governance.

Also studies of the large firm and small firm interface focus on operational issues, rather than control and ownership (Scott and Rosa, 1996). Habitual entrepreneurs are an important part of the small business community as a result of their role in regional economic development. Habitual entrepreneurs fit more closely into the traditional view of highly successful entrepreneurs (Birley and Westhead, 1993)

According to Westhead and Wright (1998), businesses owned by novice, serial and portfolio entrepreneurs in urban areas have higher levels of employment growth than their counterparts located in rural areas. Spilling (2000), found the share of multiple business entrepreneurs to be higher among SMEs than smaller firms. According to Alsos and Kolvereid (1998), the study of business gestation process of novice, serial and parallel business founders have higher probability of venture implementation than parallel founders.

It is very important to note in this study that habitual entrepreneurs may have serial motives, i.e. both push and pull factors. There are also changes found in motives for starting additional businesses, whereby diversification strategies through the multiple firms ownership may be an efficient mechanism both for launching new, ventures as well as the growth of the existing ones (Rosa and Scott). Managing a bunch as opposed to a single business offers economies of scale as well as other efficiencies.

According to Scott and Rosa (1996), multiple entrepreneurships offers an alternative approach to understanding the mechanisms of business growth, at both the local and the regional level, making it thus an important element in regional development. Also important to note is the fact that SMEs are more common in the regional levels, where they form an important element in regional economic development

According to Storey et al (1987), there is evidence that entrepreneurs of high growth firms are often linked to a high rate of multiple entrepreneurships. Donckels et al (1987, p48) also commented that multiple business creation has been found to be an important way of reaching the owner-manager’s growth objective. Very important point to note in this study is the fact that habitual entrepreneurships are more common in settings where opportunities for growth are restricted (Carter, 1998). SMEs are also a perfect illustration of ventures that survive through such settings with restricted growth opportunities (Carter, 1998).

Starr and Bygrave (1991, p.224) also found that founders initiated follow-on ventures, within the same industries as the prior business efforts, or in a closely related ones, and only that when an entrepreneur is involved in the formation of three separate firms does the degree of relatedness drop to 52%, but then increases again with the formation of the fourth and fifth business ventures. However, additional venture initiatives that are unrelated to prior entrepreneurial efforts yield higher success rate than the formation of additional ventures in related industries (Scholl Hammer 1991).

Results of a study carried out by Pasanen (2002), relating to the ownership of multiple businesses among SMEs found that once successful SMEs owned by a single venture entrepreneur, fail to be as successful as the ones owned by successful multiple entrepreneurs, whereby;

  • Multiple ventures owned by multiple business entrepreneurs are owned and managed by older entrepreneurs, for the simple reason that it takes many years to form a portfolio of businesses.
  • Are owned and managed by entrepreneurs with longer business experience
  • Are more frequently high growth firms
  • Are businesses with clearer business objectives
  • Operates in segments of the market with growing demand
  • Offer products with growing volumes
  • Buy products outside their local markets
  • Are usually export firms
  • Are keen at buying sub-contracting
  • Value less the continuity of personnel, and
  • Do not see that weak competition as important for the success of the firms

According to Pasanen (2002), many innovative growth firms belong to a small group of SMEs owned by multiple business entrepreneurs, who adapt to environmental changes, whereby they have strong growth aspirations (need to achieve the set goals), where they operate in growing and global markets. Those SMEs emphasize more on research and development activities, with innovativeness being their main success determinants.

Based on the results of our research, i.e. the fulfillment of the hypothesis that, “measurement of n achievement (TAT), and need for achievement (CMPS) have a predictive validity for the multiple entrepreneurial activity, i.e. start of new businesses, and the fact that this research showed a correlation between successful serial SME entrepreneurs and their motivation by need for achievement, we can conclude that need for achievement is a significant factor in the motivation of serial entrepreneurs.

6.0. Practical Implications and Further Research

On the importance of human capital and organizational capital on the determination of SMEs performance, a conceptual model had been proposed and tested about individual entrepreneurship capacity, and its impact both on non economic and economic performance, which had constituted an innovative approach in the sense that used information collected at the individual level, i.e. the entrepreneur. According to Audretsch (2003), one of the most important units of observation is the individual level, so as to analyze the determinants of entrepreneurship.

In the entrepreneurship literature, the prevalent frame work had been the general, model of income choice (Knight 1921, Lucas 1978, Kihlstrom and Laffont 1979, Holmes and Schmitz 1990, Jovanovich 1994, Blanch flower and Meyer 1994, and Oswald, 1998). The emergence of lively future empirical research had been developed by Hebert and Link (1988), Julien (2000), Casson (2003), Shane (2004), Blanch Flower (2007), Jungwirth (2007) and Parker (2005, 2006, 2007), all the studies of which had stressed the need for development of eclectic approaches aimed at allowing us to gauge the entrepreneurship-firm size relationship. The researches had found out that firms with higher level of human capital tended to have improved financial performance (Youndt et al 2004) and there existed a caveat on the literature about the association between human capital and non economic of firms. More over, as far as the effect of the organizational capital on non economic performance, it had not been thoroughly explored.

The research which had sought an innovative analysis based on information collected from multiple entrepreneurs, had aimed to evaluate the importance of entrepreneurship individual capacity built on human capital and organizational capital, in terms of determination of SME performance. It had thus contributed to the literature on entrepreneurship and small business management by proposing a conceptual model of the relationship between individual entrepreneurship capacity and entrepreneurial performance by taking the example of the Portuguese SMEs (Baumol, 2002).

According to Baumol (2002), multiple entrepreneurs have capabilities of creating new markets by carrying out some test markets through carrying out some test marketing or test ballooning so as to learn about the characteristics of the market, which also forms a perfect example of how an entrepreneurial activity may transform uncertainty into risk, and that is the way individual entrepreneurship capacity becomes seen in the market

Thus, organizational entrepreneurship capacity corresponds to the organizational factors that catalyze the combination of factors of production and result in the creation of sources of capital in the pursuit of entrepreneurial activities within a single unit of the firm, that embrace multiple levels of individual entrepreneurship capacity (Audretsch and Monsen, 2008). Chung and Gibbons (1997), stress the importance of two main aspects of organizational culture;

  • The Super-structure-which is concerned with the ideology that is represented through the core beliefs , values, and dominant assumptions of the organization
  • The socio-structure- which includes the social capital, and the constitution of which includes learning, information exchange, norms and sanctions

Chung and Gibbons (1997) argues that the basic aspects of organizational culture along with human capital play an influential role in determining individual entrepreneurship capacity. According to Stuart and Abetti (1990), human capital is widely considered to improve entrepreneurial performance, with the human capital theory maintaining that knowledge provides individuals with increases in their cognitive abilities, leading to more productive and efficient potential activity (Becker, 1964, Davidsson and Honiq,. 2003).

Throughout the study, we have realized that in the entrepreneurial process, individuals should have superior ability to successfully exploit opportunities. This coupled with Colombo and Grilli (2005) views, individuals with greater human capital are likely to have better entrepreneurial judgment. Empirical research has obtained a range of results concerning the relationship between human capital and performance, with suggestions that the relationship between human capital and entrepreneurial performance may be confounded by a number of factors such as persistence and education.

According to Carmeli (2004), studies have shown a positive effect of human capital on entrepreneurial performance, with three measures of performance being termed as survival, profits and generating employment. According to Hsu (2007) the relationship between the three measures and human capital is that, as long as human capital is developed, entrepreneurs can improve their entrepreneurial performance with new and relevant knowledge.

Batjargal (2007) refers to human capital as education, skills and motivation of entrepreneurs which are capable of transforming opportunities into tangible benefits. That therefore supports the hypothesis that human capital is positively related to the SME performance measured through non economic indicators, as well as the hypothesis that human capital is positively related to the SME performance measured through economic indicators.

According to Lev and Radhakrishnam (2004), organizational capital, is the major characteristic resource that affects on performance and development of firms. In turn, information and communication technologies are a major enabler of entrepreneurial capital. The individual characteristics of an entrepreneur as captured through the use of different variables forming part of the different dimensions of the conceptual model, and the estimation of multiple regression models in the study provided that;

  • The non-economic performance of SMEs is positively affected by enthusiasms in engaging in ventures, the business incentives, and efficient business structures.
  • The noneconomic performance of SMEs is negatively affected by inter-business/departmental meetings and participative management
  • The economic performance of SMEs is negatively affected by the entrepreneur’s intuition. It is important to note the variable that represents the competent entrepreneurial structure within the entrepreneurship’s culture in the dimension of entrepreneurial.

This paper gives several insights and policy implications for entrepreneurs, public and private managers in terms of promotion of individual entrepreneurship capacity within the SMEs. For policy makers, the design of formal programs oriented to the reinforcement of the propensity for the innovative activities and the frequent use of external indicators should be promoted in an organizational context, but focused on the entrepreneur, as well as internal and external collaborators. This will contribute towards enhancing the Multiple SMEs Entrepreneurs to the economic performance of SMEs

To the managers, the results provided throughout the study can help them if they expect to improve the non economic performance of SMEs, where they should bet on the transmission of enthusiasm at work and on the creation of incentives for interdisciplinary discussion and dialogue

Based on this study, it is evident that successful SME entrepreneurs are commonly serial, and are motivate by need to achieve. Such factors as discussed throughout the dissertation proves useful to the aspiring multiple entrepreneurs as they prepare to become successful in new ventures they could be planning to start.

This study has focused on multiple entrepreneurships with special attention to Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs). However, I recommend that a further research be carried in the future on the psychological aspects of multiple business entrepreneurs, owing to the fact that there exist no concrete and conclusive reasons to support why there exist a difference between entrepreneurs, even when they are faced with the same individual circumstances. I.e. entrepreneurial potentials and the environmental influences that is not in-born. It would also be important to allow for adequate time to allow for adequate time to observe the results.

Also in terms of guidelines for future research, I propose to extend the database and later to develop a Structural Equation Model (SEM), in order to identify the causality relationships established between other types of entrepreneurial capital determinants (such as director capital, relational capital, and ideological capital) entrepreneurial cognition and SME performance. For further research, the following questionnaire can be used;

Questionnaire for Multiple Entrepreneurs

Important to note; This questionnaire is to be filled by persons who own more than one business (Multiple entrepreneurs). Each Questionnaire should be filled by a single entrepreneur. This is aimed at minimizing the chances of duplicating ideas that would otherwise compromise the objectives of this research. It is equally as important to note that this questionnaire should be filled purely on voluntary basis, intended for educational research purposes, and therefore the information given on this questionnaire will be treated with utmost secrecy to avoid betraying entrepreneurs’ business secrets. Thank you for your willingness to comply

Section 1. Business Information

Entrepreneur’s Name (Optional)

Types of businesses and their names







Location of the Businesses…………………..


P.O. Box City State Zip

Types of industries your businesses run, e.g. manufacturing, exports, etc……………………………………….

Do you own the warehouses from which you run your businesses ………………if no, would you consider buying your own premises………………if yes, why ………………

Are your businesses housed in one warehouse?……………………(tick one) yes/no……………………please explain why…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Business Contact, i.e. who is in charge of your businesses……………………………………………………………………if not yourself, why choose someone in your stead (i.e. purchase of ideas, lack of enough time, etc. (please explain)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Contact Name………………………………………………………….Qualifications…………………………………………………………………………………………………….Approximate cost (%) value goes to the their salaries………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… in your opinion, is it worth it?…………..why………………………………………………………………………………………

Number of Branch Executive Officers……………………Are they solely responsible for the branch running? …………………………………Why is that so (please explain)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

What do you want to achieve from your businesses (please explain explicitly)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………


Section 2- Entrepreneurial Information

1. What motivates you to operate a series of businesses…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..Is the need to achieve among them……………………………………………..

2. Do you intend to sell some of the businesses………………………if yes, at what point in terms of profitability……………………..Why……………………………………………………………….

3. What do you think about the roles played by your employees ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

4. Do you intend to open a new business (tick one) yes/no. If no, why………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….if yes, why……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

5. Please give a brief description of the new business ventures in the pipeline…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… your view, are the new businesses in the pipeline

What five key personal characteristics would you attribute to your success in multiple businesses;






Did you like this example?

Cite this page

Motivation in multiple business entrepreneurship. (2017, Jun 26). Retrieved January 31, 2023 , from

Save time with Studydriver!

Get in touch with our top writers for a non-plagiarized essays written to satisfy your needs

Get custom essay

Stuck on ideas? Struggling with a concept?

A professional writer will make a clear, mistake-free paper for you!

Get help with your assigment
Leave your email and we will send a sample to you.
Stop wasting your time searching for samples!
You can find a skilled professional who can write any paper for you.
Get unique paper

I'm Chatbot Amy :)

I can help you save hours on your homework. Let's start by finding a writer.

Find Writer