International http://isb.sagepub.

com/ Small Business Journal

Entrepreneur motivations and life course

Dilani Jayawarna, Julia Rouse and John Kitching International Small Business Journal 2013 31: 34 originally published online 29 June 2011 DOI: 10.1177/0266242611401444 The online version of this article can be found at: http://isb.sagepub.com/content/31/1/34

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for International Small Business Journal can be found at: Email Alerts: http://isb.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://isb.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://isb.sagepub.com/content/31/1/34.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Jan 15, 2013 OnlineFirst Version of Record - Jun 29, 2011 What is This?

Downloaded from isb.sagepub.com at National School of Political on January 17, 2013

Article

i s b j
Small Firms

Entrepreneur motivations and life course

Dilani Jayawarna Julia Rouse

International Small Business Journal 31(1) 3456 The Author(s) 2011 Reprints and permission: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0266242611401444 isb.sagepub.com

The University of Liverpool Management School, UK

Manchester Metropolitan University Business School, UK

John Kitching

Kingston University Business School, UK

Abstract In this paper we propose two conceptual developments in understanding entrepreneur motivations and their effects. First, we argue that entrepreneur motivations develop dynamically in relation to career, household and business life courses. Second, we conceptualize how motivation and life courses develop interactively. We present an exploratory test of these ideas. In a sample of enterprise programme participants, we identify motivation profiles employing more robust cluster analyses than hitherto presented: our profiles are termed reluctant, convenience, economically driven, social, learning and earning, and prestige and control entrepreneurs. We then demonstrate statistical relationships between motivation profiles at a particular phase in the business life course (early establishment) and career and household life course factors. Motivations are also related to business resources, behaviour and performance. This initial confirmation of our conceptual claims suggests that further testing is warranted. Keywords business resources, cluster analysis, entrepreneurship, household, motivation, life course, performance

Introduction
The purpose of this article is to contribute to understanding entrepreneur motivation by proposing a dynamic relationship between motivation profiles and career, household and business life courses. The life course perspective has been widely employed in the social sciences to identify and explain individuals pathways through intersecting social domains, including family and work (Heinz, 2002;

Corresponding author: Dilani Jayawarna, The University of Liverpool Management School, Chatham Street, Liverpool L69 7ZH, UK Email: dilanij@liverpool.ac.uk

Downloaded from isb.sagepub.com at National School of Political on January 17, 2013

Jayawarna et al.

35

Mayer, 2009). For example, to develop understanding of work biographies (Heckhausen and Shulz, 1999) by modelling how career transitions and decisions are influenced by context (Halaby, 2004; Vondracek and Porfeli, 2002). We propose that motivations spur entrepreneur actions across a range of different pathways within three life course domains. Current knowledge suggests that entrepreneurs possess multiple motivations (Birley and Westhead, 1994; Dubini, 1989) and these are associated with environmental factors (Cassar, 2007; Taormina and Lao, 2007). We build on these ideas by conceptualizing entrepreneur motivation profiles as dynamically related to three connected, and changing, contexts: first, the individuals career, shaped by family of origin, education and work experience, which influences occupational choices and the resources brought to entrepreneurship (career life course); second, the individuals role in providing and consuming reproductive resources within the household, which affects entrepreneur labour capacity and economic motivation (household life course), and; third, the individuals experience of mobilizing resources and achieving particular business outcomes (business life course), which influences resources and perceptions of likely future performance. Situating motivation profiles within career, household and business life courses makes their contingency and dynamism apparent. Thus, we seek to spark new interest in motivation profiling as subtle and explanatory, and to revive interest in such research after critisms of entrepreneur typologies (Gartner et al., 2008; Gartner, 2010) undermined credibility. We present an exploratory test of our conceptual propositions by exploring empirically how motivation profiles relate to career and household life course contexts in a sample of small scale entrepreneurs at a particular phase in the business life course (the period following start-up that we call early establishment). We also explore how motivations relate to the heterogeneous resources, behaviour and performance of businesses at this life course phase. Our results support the argument that motivation profiles are related to life course contexts in particular ways. We argue that further testing using longitudinal and qualitative datasets is warranted. The article is structured as follows. First, we review the literature on entrepreneur motivations and present our conceptual framework and research questions. Second, we outline the research methodology, with particular attention to cluster analysis techniques. Our results and theoretical contribution are then presented. We conclude with a new research agenda and practical implications.

Entrepreneur motivations: A review and critique of the literature

Many entrepreneurial motivations have been proposed (Birley and Westhead, 1994; Carter et al., 2003; Cassar, 2007; Shane et al., 1991; Wu et al., 2007) including: economic gain; desire for achievement, independence and control; personal development; improved social status; opportunity to innovate and create new products; emulation of role models, and contribution to community welfare.

Non-economic motivations are often most powerful (Benz and Frey, 2008; Block and Koellinger, 2009). Start-up motivations are influenced by environmental factors, often simplified as opportunity and necessity entrepreneurship (Cassar, 2007; Taormina and Lao, 2007). Opportunity refers to

Downloaded from isb.sagepub.com at National School of Political on January 17, 2013

36

International Small Business Journal 31(1)

market opportunities and expectations of material gain (Segal et al., 2005); necessity to a lack of employment opportunities (MacDonald, 1996; Basu, 2004; Rouse, 2004). The literature on entrepreneurial motivations is, however, deficient in several respects. First, some start-up studies focus on a single motivation (Wu et al., 2007) or identify a list of motivations through factor analysis (Carter et al., 2003; Shane et al. 1991; Sheinberg and MacMillan, 1988), examining motivation types and their antecedents in isolation. As individuals have multiple motivations for action (Deci and Ryan, 1985; Segal et al., 2005), it is simplistic to conceptualize motivations as singular or discrete, and important to explore how motivations combine into distinctive profiles. Second, the relatively small number of studies proposing motivation clusters (for example, Birley and Westhead, 1994; Dubini, 1989) demonstrate methodological weaknesses such as using quick clustering techniques, where the number of clusters are determined prior to data examination. This defies the aim of cluster analysis to divide heterogeneous data into homogeneous clusters according to statistical associations. Multi-step clustering, in contrast, applies multiple methods of cluster analysis each better at finding clusters of a certain shape and identifies the cluster with best fits across methods (Everitt et al., 2001). Moreover, studies have failed to subject cluster homogeneity to extensive validation testing, casting doubt on the existence of distinct motivation profiles. Third, studies do not link motivation clusters systematically to individuals career pathways or to the wider social structures class, gender, ethnicity and age that influence access to the material and symbolic resources that shape pathways. Accordingly, entrepreneurial motivations are not contextualized within wider labour market opportunity structures or related to the financial, human and social capital resources brought into enterprise (Burke et al., 2002; Noorderhaven, 2004). Fourth, motivation studies ignore the household work strategies within which entrepreneurship is embedded. The motivation to run a small business in order to control working time schedules and so accommodate caring responsibilities, is rendered invisible by a narrow understanding of entrepreneurship as separate from family life (Rouse and Kitching, 2006). Equally, motivation to earn an income from entrepreneurship should be related to the household role of breadwinning for a family (Rouse, 2010). Given the sexual division of labour (Bradley, 2007), motivations are likely to be gendered, particularly during periods in the household life course when demand for reproductive labour is high. Fifth, most research has focused on start-up, implicitly assuming that start-up motivations influence all subsequent behaviour rather than changing over the business life course, with entrepreneur experience (Carter et al., 2003; Cassar 2007; Hessels et al., 2008; Kurtoko et al., 1997) and business performance (Huber and Power, 1985; Krueger and Carsrud, 1993). Indeed, start-up research often has relied on retrospective accounts (Carter et al., 2003; Gartner, 1989; Krueger et al., 2000; Shaver and Scott, 1991), rendering findings unreliable due to recall bias (Shane et al., 2003) or post hoc rationalization. Clearly, in order to understand why entrepreneurs continue in business, accounts of changing motivations at different phases in the business life course are required. In addition, motivations should be related to business experience in terms of mobilizing resources and achieving outcomes. Motivation for personal achievement, for example, may generate different actions than other forms of motivation (Shane et al., 2003); equally, enterprise commitment may be more sensitive to resource availability or profit return for the economically driven. These relationships are, however, untested. Finally, motivation studies have accounted for only a small proportion of variance in entrepreneurial performance (Baum et al., 2001; Shane et al., 2003). Indeed, the only attempt to link motivation clusters with performance (Birley and Westhead, 1994) was unable to demonstrate a significant relationship, although this may have been due to theoretical and methodological weaknesses rather than because no such relationship exists (Cassar, 2007). Further theoretical development and empirical testing is required to specify the relationship between entrepreneur motivations and business resources, behaviour and outcomes.

Downloaded from isb.sagepub.com at National School of Political on January 17, 2013

Jayawarna et al.

37

It is our proposition that entrepreneur motivations can be better understood by studying how robust motivation profiles relate to multiple dynamic environmental factors within a life course framework. In the following section we expand upon this idea.

Linking entrepreneur motivations to life course contexts

Motivation theories must be built on assumptions about the nature of human agency and the factors that generate action (Deci and Ryan, 1985). Research has related motivation for business start-up to psychological (Shaver and Scott, 1991), socio-psychological (Hessels et al., 2008), cognitive value and economic theories (Block and Koellinger, 2009; Kurtoko et al., 1997). We have argued, however, that there is inadequate understanding of motivation as dynamically related to changing life course contexts. Specifically, we situate entrepreneur motivation in career, household and business life courses. Through what mechanisms does motivation develop in relation to these life course contexts? Stones (2005) and Archer (2000) conceptualize human understanding of self and opportunity as arising from a continuous biographical process of sensemaking and action within particular social contexts. Personal circumstances are constituted by the constraints and enablements that individuals face, given their position within the key social structures (Archer, 2000, 2003; Stones, 2005) of class, ethnicity, gender, age and location (Bradley, 1996). People have a biographically developed understanding of the projects available to them. By acting, they test this understanding and learn new information which leads them to (fallibly) reformulate their projects. It is our contention that motivation directs action and is constantly subject to change in light of experimentation and (fallible) learning. Within such a framework, entrepreneur motivations develop from experience in changing career, household and business contexts. Within the career life courses, for example, frustrating employment experiences may lead to a desire for independence through entrepreneurship (Mallon and Cohen, 2001). Within the household life course, becoming a parent may lead to a desire to reduce business commitments to fulfil care responsibilities or, alternatively, to grow a business to succeed as a family breadwinner (Rouse and Kitching, 2006). Within the business life course, entrepreneurs who start up primarily for economic gain although achieving disappointing returns continue to trade due to a new attachment to the social status afforded to business ownership (Rouse, 2004). Through their motivated actions, entrepreneurs reproduce or transform their life course contexts. Within the career life course, for instance, a desire for independence through entrepreneurship may influence education and career decisions prior to start-up; within the household life course, desire to achieve in a business may result in postponement of parenthood to concentrate on developing a business, and; within the business life course, desire for economic gain may affect business strategy to generate growth, reinforcing motivation to earn through entrepreneurship. Relationships between motivations and life course contexts are not mechanistic (Archer, 2003): a change in circumstances produces new information which may cause realignment of motivation but equally may be ignored, sustaining motivation by habit, or cause the entrepreneur to act otherwise to expected norms. For example, the economic gain achieved from entrepreneurship may not bring the satisfaction expected, prompting reduction in the scale of operations in favour of a control or worklife balance motivation. Motivations are multiple and people may reorder their hierarchy of motives in subtle ways as they are subjected to conflicting pressures and receive information about the likelihood of satisfying particular concerns. Overall, however, it is likely that entrepreneurs will, to varying degrees, create lifestyles in which motivations, actions and circumstances roughly complement one another. We can expect associations between entrepreneur motivations, life course contexts and business actions. In the following section we present an exploratory test of our conceptual developments.

Downloaded from isb.sagepub.com at National School of Political on January 17, 2013

38

International Small Business Journal 31(1)

Figure 1. Entrepreneur Motivations in Relation to Career, Household and Business Life Courses

An exploratory investigation: motivation profiles during early establishment

We analyse the relationship between motivation profiles and career and household life courses in a cohort occupying a particular stage in the business life course (early establishment). We propose a multi-factor model of motivation using items validated in previous studies. We then test whether the motivation profiles are statistically associated with career and household life course factors, and business resources, behaviour and performance (Figure 1). This enables more subtle analysis of the early establishment phase in the business life course. These relationships between motivation clusters and life course factors have not been demonstrated in previous analyses. As our framework is exploratory, we do not present hypotheses about the expected relationships between motivation clusters and career, household or business life course characteristics. Instead, we explore the following three research questions. As our framework is exploratory, we do not present hypotheses about expected relationships between motivation clusters and career, household or business life course characteristics. Instead, we explore three research questions.
RQ1: Following criticism of motivation cluster studies (e.g. Cassar, 2007), can motivations for entrepreneurship be organized into meaningful yet statistically robust profiles as they relate to a particular phase in the business life course?

Downloaded from isb.sagepub.com at National School of Political on January 17, 2013

Jayawarna et al.

39

We explore this question through multi-factor cluster analysis on a cohort during the early establishment phase. Our analysis overcomes criticism of earlier studies by presenting multiple motivation profiles and assuming that profiles are dynamic, contextualizing them to a particular phase in the business life course.
RQ2: Do motivation clusters at the early establishment phase relate to specific career and household life course circumstances?

Specifically, we test associations with: family business experience, entrepreneur age and transition from economic activity or inactivity (career life course indicators); and marital status, childcare responsibilities, hours worked in the business, working from home and total living costs (household life course indicators). Career life course indicators relate motivation to early exposure to entrepreneur role models, chronological age which is interpreted as a proxy for labour market experience, and progression expectations that are assumed to decline after middle age (Scales and Scase, 2000). Household life course indicators suggest both the type of household to which entrepreneurs belong (in terms of co-partnering and income demands) and entrepreneurs household roles (indicated by childcare responsibilities, ability to invest long hours in the business and working from home).
RQ3: Following methodological criticism of studies that have sought to link motivation with business performance (Baum et al., 2001; Cassar, 2007), are motivation clusters at the early establishment phase linked to particular business characteristics?

The business factors we are able to test include: the amount and type of investment at start-up (financial resource indicators); risk-taking propensity, eagerness to learn, long-term determination to stay in business and business strategy (behaviour indicators); and business turnover, turnover growth and satisfaction with business profit and drawings or wages from the business (performance indicators). By addressing these questions we offer an exploratory test of our central theoretical proposition that entrepreneur motivations interrelate with the business, career and household contexts.

Method Sample and questionnaire

We draw on data from a repeated evaluation survey of businesses started under the New Entrepreneur Scholarship (NES) programme (Jayawarna et al., 2007; Rouse and Boles, 2004). NES was a government-funded initiative aimed at reducing barriers to starting a business for the residents of disadvantaged areas in England; it operated from 20022008 (Rouse and Jayawarna, 2006). A combination of postal, web and telephone survey methods were used to collect data. The surveys

Downloaded from isb.sagepub.com at National School of Political on January 17, 2013

40

International Small Business Journal 31(1)

were piloted with a learning support specialist, programme providers and a randomly selected sample of 10 NES participants to ensure readability and usability. The surveys were conducted in 2004 and 2006. Almost one-quarter (23%) of NES scholars responded in the first wave. Of these, 49% responded in the second wave. Median business age at wave two was 39 months and an average of four years and three months had elapsed since starting business planning by joining NES. Four respondents reported a business age of less than a year but they excluded a pre-enterprise period (attending business start-up programme and developing the business) of well over a year (average 16 months) in their calculation of business age. We define the sample as sharing a phase in the business life course following start-up that we describe as early establishment. Complete data is available for 211 respondents in both waves, and this constitutes the research sample.

Data collection
Demographic details are taken from wave 1. Motivations for sustaining a business and business characteristics are taken from wave 2. Change in business performance is measured between waves. Chisquare results indicated that respondents at wave 2 are representative of the first wave in terms of gender, age, education, business type and turnover. Mail, web and telephone respondents in both waves of research exhibited similar characteristics (differences not significant at p < 0.05 level). The wave 2 survey explored motivations for remaining in business. A list of 25 items well-established in the entrepreneur motivation literature (Birley and Westhead, 1994; Carter et al., 2003; Dubini, 1989; Kolvereid, 1992) was adapted to make it applicable to sustaining entrepreneurship beyond start-up (e.g. a question about attraction to the challenge of starting a business was amended to ask about the challenge of running a business). Respondents were asked to rate items in terms of importance in the decision to remain in business on a five-point scale (ranging from 1 = not at all important to 5 = extremely important). Data about business strategy was taken from 14 questions included in the second wave survey drawing from the categories established in Carter et al. (1994). An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) identified six strategies: market sensitivity (gaining market knowledge and responding to customers); service quality (offering better service and quality products/services); distinctiveness (provide unique products/services); site appeal (superior/convenient location, attractive facilities); technological sophistication (develop/utilize new/advanced technology); and competitive pricing (lower price than competitors). Respondents were asked to what extent they used each strategy to be competitive. Other measures were either single items or common measures (e.g. degree of childcare responsibilities and business growth intentions). The sample consisted of similar proportions of men and women and was relatively young (with one-quarter aged under 30 and only 10 percent aged 50 or over). Just over half had a degree-level qualification and fewer than 10 percent had no formal qualifications. Nearly one-quarter were from ethnic minorities. Half had dependent children and most of these took some childcare role. Perhaps reflecting the relatively young sample, around 30 percent were married and 1 in 10 cohabiting. One-quarter were primary carers for children. Most of the respondents were running home-based (69 percent) and small-scale businesses (mean turnover 35,400, median turnover 18,850). Reflecting the social inclusion objectives of the NES programme, 60 percent were transitioning from economic inactivity when they started in business (Table 1). As our central argument is that entrepreneur motivations relate to life course factors, we emphasize that the distribution and possibly the motivation profile types identified may be specific to the particular sample studied. Different samples incorporating more prosperous or larger enterprises, for example, might exhibit different motivation profile distributions.

Downloaded from isb.sagepub.com at National School of Political on January 17, 2013

Jayawarna et al.
Table 1. Sample Profile Characteristics Gender:  Male Age:  <30 years  3040 years  4050 years  >50 years Academic qualifications:  Degree/postgraduate  Higher secondary  Lower secondary  No formal qualification Business operating from home Business age in months (median)  Childcare responsibilities:a  Take the main role  Share responsibilities   No childcare responsibilities No. of dependent children:a   No children  One child  More than one child Marital status:  Married  Cohabiting Parents in business  Transition from economic inactivity  Business turnover:a  <5,000  5,00010,000  10,00050,000  50,000100,000  >100,000
aTotal

41

Sample %/mean (n = 211) 53.4 24.8 36.4 28.8 10.0 54.0 16.0 21.0 8.8 68.7 40 28.6 29.4 40.3 48.9 23.3 25.3 31.7 13.2 14.8 60.2 22.8 7.4 44.4 15.3 9.6

may not add up to 100% due to missing data

Data analysis
Analysis was undertaken in three stages: exploratory factor analysis (EFA); cluster analysis and validation, and; association between clusters and life course and business factors. First, the 25 motivation items were subjected to EFA to delineate underlying dimensions of motivation. Next, respondents were clustered based on their motivation factor scores to identify distinct entrepreneur motivation profiles, and the results were validated. Third, we explored the relationship between clusters and career and household life courses, and business resources, behaviour and performance.

Downloaded from isb.sagepub.com at National School of Political on January 17, 2013

42

Table 2. Exploratory Factor Analysis Motivation Taxonomies Factor 1: Achievement .841 .789 .673 .665 .753 .717 .632 .611 .764 .683 .639 .582 .817 .644 .523 .805 .742 .712 .469 Factor 2: Flexibility Factor 3: Materialism Factor 4: power Factor 5: Status Factor 6: Community Factor 7: Role model

Motivation measurement items

Downloaded from isb.sagepub.com at National School of Political on January 17, 2013

Have meaningful work Continue learning Be channelled by the challenges of running a business Have responsibility Be able to work from home Have greater flexibility for my personal/family life Control my own time Have independence at work Make lots of money Have access to indirect benefits (e.g. tax exemptions) Give myself and my family security Realise my dreams Be my own boss Have freedom to adapt my own approach to work Have the power to make decisions Make other people proud Achieve a higher position for myself in society Contribute to the welfare of the community I live in Contribute to the welfare of the people with the same background as me Continue a family tradition Follow an example I admire Eigenvalue Cumulative % variance Cronbachs alpha 4.42 26.53 0.833 3.15 38.53 0.627 2.8 49.97 0.687 1.55 59.13 0.678 1.47 67.46 0.714 1.12 72.57 0.670

.628 .439 1.08 77.75 0.677

International Small Business Journal 31(1)

Factor loadings are given

Jayawarna et al.

43

The extensive clustering method and validation tests employed generate much greater validity than previous studies of entrepreneur motivations (Birley and Westhead, 1994; Dubini, 1989). Exploratory factor analysis. Varimax rotation was applied to principal components in order to extract factors (Table 2). Items that exhibited high reliability (Cronbachs >0.66), high factor loadings (>0.40) and low cross-loadings (<0.40) were chosen to represent factors. The final factor solution1 contained seven factors with an Eigen value>1 and together accounted for 78 percent of the variance in the sample. The seven factors were labelled to reflect common themes across the factor items and were influenced by factors discussed in the entrepreneur motivation literature. They are presented in order of the amount of variance they account for as follows. Achievement the four items loaded into this factor reflect Maslows (1943) need for selfactualization and closely relate to Murrays (1938) theory of psychogenic needs. It captures desires for personal accomplishment, continuous learning and to attain results through personal effort (Taormina and Lao, 2007). It accounts for 26.5% of variance; reliability coefficient 0.83. Flexibility the four items loaded into this factor refer to the entrepreneurs desire to work from home, have flexibility in combining family and work, control work time and be independent at work. It has a close resemblance to the items loaded into Dubinis (1989) freedom factor and Carter et al.s (2003) independence research. It accounts for 12% of variance; reliability coefficient of 0.63. Materialism the four items loaded into this factor relate to three items in previous studies: tangible outcomes or material incentives (Dubini, 1989), perceived instrumentality of wealth (Birley and Westhead, 1994) and financial success (Carter et al., 2003). It accounts for 11.5% of variance; reliability coefficient 0.69. Power the three items loaded into this factor relate to Shane et al.s (1991) distinction between power and status motivations. Power indicates the desire for controlling situations by being the leader. It accounts for 9.2% of variance; reliability coefficient 0.68. Status the two items loaded into this factor relate to the pursuit of prestige, identified by Shane et al. (1991) and distinguished from a power motive. It also corresponds to a need for approval (Birley and Westhead, 1994) and recognition (Carter et al., 2003). It accounts for 8.3% of variance; reliability coefficient 0.71. Community the two items loaded into this factor relate to the entrepreneurs desire to contribute to the wider community or provide welfare to people with the same background as themselves (Dubini, 1989). It strongly relates to the desire for communitarianism (Scheinberg and MacMillan, 1988) or philanthropic interests (Dubini, 1989). It accounts for 5.1% of variance; reliability coefficient 0.67. Role model the two items loaded into this factor relate to how both role models and family traditions encourage entrepreneurship (Shane et al., 1991). It accounts for 5% of variance; reliability coefficient 0.68. Cluster analysis. In order to group respondents based on their profile of multiple motivation factors, a multi-step cluster analysis (Norusis, 2007) was performed. Following our criticism of the quick clustering method, we employed multi-stage clustering to identify the best cluster solution based on statistical associations. We also employed a number of sophisticated methods to validate our cluster selection: to our knowledge, such extensive validating testing has not been employed in previous studies. First, a hierarchical K-means clustering procedure using Wards minimum-variance hierarchical technique (Everitt et al., 2001) for cluster differentiation was performed. This maximizes between-cluster and minimizes within-cluster variance. The preliminary analysis suggested four to

Downloaded from isb.sagepub.com at National School of Political on January 17, 2013

44
Table 3. Cluster Profiles Motivation to continue trading Achievement Flexibility Materialism Power Status Role models Community Clusters 1 +0.32 3 +0.37 3 +0.38 3 0.36 5 0.12 4 0.10 6 +0.29 3 2 0.27 5 +1.38 1 0.27 5 +0.06 4 0.49 6 +0.14 5 +0.68 2 3 +0.23 4 0.57 5 +1.14 1 +0.67 2 +0.58 2 +0.81 1 1.03 6 4 +0.44 2 + 0.63 2 0.95 6 +0.12 3 0.24 5 +0.54 2 +1.34 1 5 +1.24 1 0.92 6 +0.42 2 0.25 6 +0.52 3 +0.36 4 0.6 5

International Small Business Journal 31(1)

6 0.65 6 +0.37 4 0.23 4 +1.35 1 +1.01 1 +0.45 3 +0.16 4

ANOVA F stat. 64. 23 81.72 71.16 58.38 46.43 11.63 66.1

Post-hoc Scheffe 5>1,2,3,4,6c 2>4c>1,6b>3,5c 3>1, 5c>2,6b>4c 6>3c>1,2,4,5c 6>3,5c>1,2,4b 3>4,6b>1,2,5a 4>2c>1,6c>5c>3c

Cluster names: 1 (reluctant); 2 (convenience); 3 (economically driven); 4 (social); 5 (learning and earning); 6 (prestige and control) p < 0.01; p < 0.001 in post-hoc Scheffe results a: p < 0.05, b: p < 0.01, c: p < 0.001. Cluster centres based on the average values of the factor scores are given. The numbers 16 for each motivation factor represent the order in which these motives are important for members in each cluster

seven clusters. Study of the agglomeration coefficients indicated that six- and seven-cluster solutions were the most homogeneous. The highest increase in coefficients occurred when moving from a seven- to a six-cluster solution; such an increase between two adjacent sets is a useful indicator of the ideal number of clusters (Norusis, 2007). As further reduction in cluster numbers would result in a substantial drop in the models explanatory power (Milligan and Cooper, 1987), semipartial R2values for each step change were used as an indication of the degree of significant increase 2 in the distance measures in the dendogram. These statistics suggested that a six-cluster model has higher explanatory power than other models tested, and that this solution captured substantial variation in the data. Cluster validation. Membership of the six-cluster solution was validated using a number of univariate and multivariate analyses. Cluster validation is important to ensure that cluster membership is both homogeneous within clusters and heterogeneous between clusters. MANOVA and ANOVA tests produced significant results. The Wilks lambda of 0.038 drawn from MANOVA results, in which clusters are the independent variables and the seven motivation factors are dependent variables, is statistically significant (F = 48.507, p < .001). This, together with the ANOVA result of p < 0.001 for all cluster centres (see Table 3), indicated that the six clusters were significantly distinct with respect to all seven motivational variables, and that all factors contributed to differentiating the clusters. Based on Scheffes pairwise comparison results, all clusters varied from at least one of the others with respect to individual motivation factors. These results confirm that the clusters are externally heterogeneous and that grouping entrepreneurs in this way based on their motivation to sustain entrepreneurship is valid. Discriminant analysis (Huberty and Lowman, 1997) confirmed that the identified cluster solution correctly predicted cluster membership for at least 94 percent of the 211 cases; the prediction

Downloaded from isb.sagepub.com at National School of Political on January 17, 2013

Jayawarna et al.

45

accuracy for each of the six clusters varies from 89 to 100 percent. Overall, the final discrimination model produced significant results (Wilks lambda = 0.32, p < 0.01). This means that the clusters cannot be easily attributed to random or idiosyncratic factors, and irrespective of sample size,3 the criterion adopted to use a six-cluster solution is both statistically and conceptually valid.

Findings Motivation clusters

Cluster centre comparisons across the seven motivation factors (Table 3) were used to interpret the six clusters. In addition, the mean values for the 25 individual motivation items across the six clusters were used to clarify the cluster definitions.4 The six clusters are defined and presented below in order of their presence in the sample. Reluctant entrepreneurs (30% of sample cases). This group are necessity entrepreneurs: the number of respondents in this cluster is likely to relate to the enterprise programme from which the sample is drawn. They do not score highly for any motive conventionally associated with entrepreneurship, suggesting that they either lack motivation or have an unidentified motivation. Some interest is expressed in flexibility, materialism, achievement and community contribution. High mean scores were obtained for three materialism items (give myself and my family security, realize my dreams and escape benefit dependence). Convenience entrepreneurs (21%). This cluster is motivated by the flexibility of operating their business around other life pursuits such as family: the flexibility motivation factor scored highest in this group, with all four individual items scoring highly. Cluster members also expressed some motivation for community contribution. Significantly low scores were given to the need for status, materialism and achievement. Economically driven entrepreneurs (18%). These entrepreneurs are strongly motivated by material factors, particularly the item to make lots of money. They are also motivated to follow role models and to gain power and status. They are not motivated by flexibility and community participation. Social entrepreneurs (13%). These entrepreneurs rated contribution to community as their primary motive, plus flexibility and achievement related to business ownership and some desire to emulate role models. This group showed minimum concern for material benefits and status. Learning and earning entrepreneurs (10%). These entrepreneurs are driven significantly more by the achievement motive particularly by the opportunities available for learning and responding to the challenges of running a business. They also ranked second on materialism. Thus, they have mixed motivations: to achieve by learning and being challenged and to create wealth. They are motivated to a lower degree by flexibility and control. This group does not display an interest in community welfare or indirect benefits such as working from home, receiving tax exemptions or spending more time with the family. Prestige and control entrepreneurs (8%). These business owners are motivated equally towards high levels of status and by power to control work practices. Surprisingly, however, the members in this group show low interest in achievement and only a moderate interest in material benefits.

Entrepreneur motivations and career, household and business life courses

We have proposed that entrepreneur motivations are shaped by life course contexts career, household, business within which agents think and act. As career, household and business life course circumstances change over time, entrepreneur motivations for continuing in business (or not) are

Downloaded from isb.sagepub.com at National School of Political on January 17, 2013

46

International Small Business Journal 31(1)

Table 4. Cluster Variations in Relation to Career, Household and Business Characteristics Characteristics Position in social structures:  Gender (male, female)  Ethnicity (white, others)  Class measured as level of education (low/no, secondary, degree, postgraduate) Position in the career life course:  Age of the entrepreneur (<30, 3039, 4049, >50 years )  Family business experience (family experience in business ownership, no family business experience)  Transition to entrepreneurship from economic inactivity Position in household life course:  Marital status (single, living with partner)  Hours worked in a typical week (number of hours)  Childcare responsibilities  Working from home  Living costs (total living cost) Business characteristics:  Financial resources  Amount of business investment at start-up (total investment)  Type of business investment at start-up (grant, loan, personal investment)  Business behaviour  Risk-taking propensity (1 = low; 4 = high)  Eager to learn (1 = low; 4 = high)  Long-term determination to remain in business (1 = low; 4 = high)  Business strategy (market sensitivity; service quality; distinctiveness; site appeal; technological sophistication; and competitive pricing)  Business growth intention (1 = downgrading; 2 = remain the same; 3 = rapid/moderate growth)  Business performance  Current business turnover (total)  Sales growth (1 = low sales growth; 5 = high sales growth) Turnover growth (1 = dropped; 2 = remained the same;  3 = increased) Satisfaction with business profit (1 = low; 5 = high)  Satisfaction with drawings/wage from the business  (1 = low; 5 = high) Chi-square (2)/ ANOVA (F) stats. 2 = 42.562 2 = 8.58 2 = 97.82 2 = 47.72 2 = 49.417 2 = 2.92 2 = 3.818 F = 8.37 2 = 87.221 2 = 4.13 F = 0.68 d.f. Significance level 5 5 15 p = 0.000 p = 0.036 p = 0.000 p = 0.000 p = 0.000 p = 0.101 p = 0.092 p = 0.003 p = 0.000 p = 0.046 p = 0.367 p = 0.645 p = 0.029 p = 0.006 p = 0.023 p = 0.000 p = 0.003 p = 0.000 p = 0.128 p = 0.021 p = 0.001 p = 0.007 p = 0.487

15 5 5 5 5,197 10 5 5,168

F = 0.46 2 = 10.14 F = 7.49 F = 4.43 F = 11.66 F = 8.71 2 = 32.32 F = 1.36 F = 4.08 2 = 24.25 F = 5.37 F = 0.72

5,197 10

5, 211 5, 210 5, 211 25 15

5,181 5,193 15 5,197 5,197

likely to change. Consequently, we expect to find common (although not mechanistic) associations between motivations and career and household life course factors at particular stages in the business life course. To test the proposition that motivations and life course factors are inter-related, we explore the career and household life course factors associated with each of the six motivation

Downloaded from isb.sagepub.com at National School of Political on January 17, 2013

Jayawarna et al.

47

clusters. We also analyse the business characteristics (resources, behaviour and performance) associated with each motivation profile within the early establishment phase in the business life course. The results presented in Table 4 indicate that entrepreneur motivation profiles are significantly related to most of the life course factors tested;5 only those that are statistically significant across clusters are included in our analysis below. Statistical significance means that there is a patterned association between the clusters and variables cited. However, this association is not universal: not all cluster members fit the life course and business profiles indicated, reflecting the complexity of environmental factors affecting different entrepreneurs and peoples capacity to sustain motivations apparently at odds with expectations. Reluctant entrepreneur. These are mostly working-class young people, many from minority ethnic groups, with low determination to stay in business (only 13% intend to grow and nearly one-quarter intend to shrink the business). Immediate motivations for sustaining business reflects the lack of alternative employment opportunities available to working class and minority youth (MacDonald, 1996; Rouse, 2004); their long-term reluctance reflects either a preference for employment or low expectations of achieving benefits such as status and wealth from their poorly resourced businesses. As young people often lack sufficient personal assets to secure loans (Fairlie, 2005), reluctant entrepreneurs make limited personal and debt investment and are highly dependent on grants. Their primary business strategy is competitive pricing, reflecting trade at the lowest end of the market that is typical of young working-class entrepreneurs with limited human and social capital (MacDonald, 1996; Rouse, 2004). Despite their reluctance and poor resources, most work long hours (average 58 hours per week), reflecting limited childcare responsibilities and, possibly, inefficient working practices arising from restricted resources. Reluctant entrepreneurs show some satisfaction with profits, probably due to low household financial demands and low expectations arising from their constrained social positions. However, a fundamental lack of opportunities and resources means that their short-term satisfaction does not translate into long-term motivation to stay in business. Overall, this group is likely to be volatile and transient. Convenience entrepreneurs. These are mostly white, working-class young mothers using business as a part-time stop gap during a phase in the household life course when employment is difficult to sustain due to the double disadvantage of poor education and mothering responsibilities (Rouse and Kitching, 2006). Business is motivating because it enables the rare convenience of flexibly combining part-time work (average working week = 21 hours) with childcare (97% have childcare responsibilities) in the home (87% trade from home). As this need is transitory, commitment to remain in business over the long term is low. The heavy female domination (86%) of this group reflects the gendered division of care labour in the early stage of the reproductive life course (Crompton, 2006). Sales growth is slow. Business potential is constrained by limited time, education and expectations (indicated by relative satisfaction with business profits) and lower value business strategies (most commonly, service quality). Convenience entrepreneurs rank lowest in terms of risk-taking. Female aversion to risk-taking is well established (Brindley, 2005); for this group, it may well relate to a short time horizon as mothers seek to create immediate income from entrepreneurship while sustaining long-term aspirations for employment careers. Risk aversion means convenience entrepreneurs make low debt investment but compensate with high personal investment. Economically driven entrepreneurs. These fit most closely the stereotyped, gendered view of the masculine entrepreneurial hero (Ahl, 2006): most are white, male, under 40 and graduates or postgraduates with family business experience. More than half have business premises. They have only moderate determination to remain in a business, probably reflecting low satisfaction with profits (in the context of poor business performance) and pressure to provide greater household income; many of the men have children and are likely to be the main breadwinner. This reflects the pressure

Downloaded from isb.sagepub.com at National School of Political on January 17, 2013

48

International Small Business Journal 31(1)

on young fathers to exit from poorly performing businesses (Rouse, 2004). Sustaining entrepreneurship in the short term is justified by the hope of increasing economic returns; long-term survival is dependent on fulfilling that hope. This group displays impatience for business returns: they make the highest debt investment, are the second highest risk-takers, have the highest growth intentions and have achieved second highest sales growth but show low commitment to accredited learning. Eagerness for returns from the business is matched with market-oriented strategies (market sensitivity and site appeal). Economically driven entrepreneurs differ from the image of the heroic entrepreneur in that they work only standard full-time hours (average 38 hours per week), probably because two-thirds have childcare responsibilities (20% are even primary carers). This suggests that stereotyped notions of the heroic entrepreneur may be somewhat dated in light of mens increasing secondary childcare responsibilities (OBrien, 2005). Poor business performance may also necessitate dual income households. Overall, this profile confirms that even traditionally masculine businesses driven by economic motives can be usefully conceived of as embedded in the life course of the micro-enterprise household (Wheelock et al., 2003). Social entrepreneurs. These are more often women than men and the majority are from ethnic minorities. These business owners are relatively committed to staying in business but sales growth is low, and only one-quarter intend to grow, despite low satisfaction with business profits. The primary strategy is competitive pricing followed by service quality, indicating trade at the lowervalue end of service markets. Most (82%) have business premises, probably reflecting provision of community services. There are few risk-takers in this group. It seems that social entrepreneurs may be prepared to sustain small-scale, low-risk, marginal enterprise if it produces community benefits. Long hours (average 47 hours per week) and high levels of education are invested in businesses. However, they make low personal and debt investment. This is probably to be related to lower personal rewards, the availability of grants for social purposes (Sharir and Lerner, 2006), a low risk-taking propensity and complex factors that cause low rates of borrowing by women (Carter and Shaw, 2006). Social entrepreneurship may attract families new to business ownership - only a third has family business experience. The majority of social entrepreneurs have a childcare role, but few are primary carers, perhaps because children are of school age. Unlike convenience entrepreneurs, commitment to business is not closely allied to a short phase in the family life course, making entrepreneurship more sustainable. Learning and earning entrepreneurs. These are similar to economically driven entrepreneurs in that they are predominantly well-educated men. However, they are older (most are over 40) and have few childcare responsibilities (none are primary carers), enabling them to work long hours (average 44 hours per week). It is possible that at a later stage of life, there is more opportunity for men to combine pressure to earn with a desire for learning and achievement as mothers earn more and release them from primary or sole breadwinner responsibilities. Learning and earning entrepreneurs display a significant commitment to making their businesses into career vehicles (three-quarters intend to grow and none intend to reduce scale), perhaps reflecting their mid-life career position. This is the group most prepared to take risks, but they also match this with the highest commitment to learning and pursuit of niche market strategies (technological sophistication and distinctiveness) and have the highest sales growth. Lowest satisfaction with profits reflects their commitment to earning as well as learning. It may reflect both their hunger to build resilient businesses and their role as breadwinners to older children. This group is more optimistic than economically driven entrepreneurs about sustaining businesses long-term through profit growth, perhaps due to greater success and longer time horizons permitted by an easing of the breadwinner role. Three-quarters work from home, indicating businesses with lower cost bases than economically driven entrepreneurs. Learning and earning entrepreneurs also differ from economically driven entrepreneurs in

Downloaded from isb.sagepub.com at National School of Political on January 17, 2013

Jayawarna et al.
Table 5. Typical Associations between Motivation Clusters and Life Course Contexts Motivation cluster Reluctant entrepreneurs Typical phase in career and household life courses Working-class young people (some ethnic minority) with few employment prospects Working class, white young mothers Businesses operating from home Educated young fathers with some childcare responsibilities Typical business resources, behaviour and performance

49

Convenience entrepreneurs

Economically driven entrepreneurs

Social entrepreneurs

Learning and earning entrepreneurs

Older, educated women/ men (mainly ethnic minority) with minor childcare role Largely operating from premises Mid-life educated men with few childcare responsibilities (many ethnic minority)

Low personal investment High time investment Lower value strategies Slow/no growth Low debt investment/high personal investment Low time investment Lower value strategies Slow growth High debt investment Moderate time investment Low commitment to learning Market-orientated strategies Relatively high growth Dependence on grants Low family business experience High time investment Lower value strategies No/low growth Balanced investment portfolio High time investment High risk-taking and learning propensities Niche market strategies High growth High debt investment Low time investment Higher value strategies Moderate growth

Prestige and control entrepreneurs

Older, well-educated men following a family role model and caring for children (many ethnic minority)

that only 18 percent have family business experience and a high proportion (57%) are members of ethnic minorities; they may be pursuing learning and wealth creation through entrepreneurship due to discrimination in the employment market (Masurel et al., 2002). Prestige and control entrepreneurs. These are mainly well-educated men who are older than economically driven and learning-and-earning entrepreneurs. The majority are following a family role model (87%) and are eager to remain in business. They seem to be sustaining entrepreneurship to replicate status achieved by other family members and to match status with career maturity. Almost half (46%) are members of ethnic minorities; they may be unable to satisfy status demands in employment due to racial discrimination. Prestige and control entrepreneurs are the second highest debt investors, possibly due to ownership of assets in later life (Hart et al., 2005) and financial demands made by trading from business premises. Similar to learning and earning entrepreneurs, they are willing to learn and have strategies oriented to higher value markets (market sensitivity and technological sophistication). However, they have only average sales growth and mixed growth intentions

Downloaded from isb.sagepub.com at National School of Political on January 17, 2013

50

International Small Business Journal 31(1)

(one-third intend to shrink the business and only one-quarter to grow). They also have higher satisfaction with business profits and work much fewer hours (average 27 hours per week) than learning and earning entrepreneurs. Instead, they have greater childcare responsibilities (62%) and 18 percent take the primary childcare role. Prestige and control entrepreneurs seem to have less pressure to earn and more freedom to balance business and leisure, possibly reflecting greater freedom from the masculine breadwinner role as households adopt more equal dual earner work strategies in later life (Crompton, 2006). Our findings suggest that entrepreneur motivation clusters relate to dynamic life course contexts to create distinct patterns that are conceptually convincing and empirically robust. Typical associations between motivation profiles, career and household life courses and business resources, behaviour and performance are summarized in Table 5.

Discussion
The connection we have demonstrated between motivation profiles and life course factors is novel. Our six clusters are distinctive sets of entrepreneur motivations and these are linked to particular patterns of career, household and business characteristics within a specific business life course phase. These findings support our conceptual proposition that entrepreneur motivations are dynamically interrelated with social circumstances usefully conceived of as life course domains. As our empirical analysis is specific to a sample of start-up programme participants, comprising residents of deprived areas who predominately run small-scale and home-based enterprises, it is important to qualify our empirical findings. Given that the motivation profiles we identify reflect factors and clusters identified in existing research (Birley and Westhead, 1994; Shane et al., 2003), we suspect that the motivation profiles themselves may be common among the wider small business population. Clearly, however, this claim should be subjected to testing by researching different entrepreneur samples. The frequency of profile membership we identified may well be closely related to our research sample: in particular, the high frequency of reluctant entrepreneurs is likely to be associated with the lack of employment options available to our sample. Also, the life course factors associated with each profile may vary in a different sample: for example, mothers or ethnic minorities in professional career life courses more commonly might be learning and earning, or economically driven, entrepreneurs. Clearly, further research on different entrepreneur samples is warranted both to test our model and to explore heterogeneity in entrepreneur motivations and circumstances. Our empirical findings have implications for a wide range of entrepreneurship literatures. For example, our finding that reluctant entrepreneurs work very long hours yet perform poorly supports the argument that resource-poor businesses have socially constrained prospects, regardless of the effort invested (MacDonald, 1996; Rouse, 2004). The constrained labour power and short time horizons of convenience entrepreneurs could problematize and explain the risk avoidance attributed to some female entrepreneurs (Brindley, 2005), as when capacity to build businesses is highly constrained and only immediate returns are of interest, it is rational to limit financial risk. Our finding that economically driven entrepreneurs are more likely to have childcare responsibilities and work only standard hours provides novel empirical evidence to refute the normality of unbounded masculinity on which archetypal notions of entrepreneurship rest (Ahl, 2006), or at least exposes the contingency of this practice on establishing a business sufficiently profitable to support a household. Equally, our finding that social entrepreneurs are often older women, free of demanding childcare responsibilities and able to invest long hours in entrepreneurship for low rewards provides new insight into the gendered life course conditions that might support social entrepreneurship.

Downloaded from isb.sagepub.com at National School of Political on January 17, 2013

Jayawarna et al.

51

The strong association we detected between business health and being a learning and earning entrepreneur is likely to interest business growth theorists. By linking motivations to household life course we have discovered a new insight: that these are often older men, with low childcare responsibilities but high income needs, probably with breadwinning responsibility for an older family. The fact that most of these are home-based reminds us that potential cannot be read off from scale or location; niche, knowledge-based enterprises might be run from home. Conversely, it is interesting that commonly, prestige and control entrepreneurs do have childcare responsibilities and work parttime. There is a suggestion here that simply raising identification with entrepreneurship (the common goal of entrepreneurship education) may have unintended consequences, because wanting to be an entrepreneur for its own sake does not necessarily lead to financial success and may be sustainable only as part of a mixed household work strategy. As proposed conceptually, our findings point to how entrepreneur motivations are shaped by social structures as they are experienced across the life course. Class and gender processes tend to exclude working-class youth (reluctant entrepreneurs) and mothers with demanding childcare responsibilities (convenience entrepreneurs) from employment opportunities. Excluded individuals respond by channelling their motivation for economic activity into entrepreneurship, although the constraints that exclude them from employment also inhibit business performance. This finding contributes to a growing evidence base that refutes the notion of enterprise as an open route of opportunity (Rouse and Jayawarna, 2006). In contrast to reluctant entrepreneurs, mid-career individuals (economically driven and learning and earning entrepreneurs) are able to bring greater resources to entrepreneurship, create more sophisticated business strategies and produce better outcomes. However, changing divisions of domestic labour mean that the penalties of care work no longer exclusively accrue to women (Bradley, 2007) many economically driven entrepreneurs also must accommodate some childcare responsibilities when families are young. Nevertheless, men with younger families continue to feel the pressure to earn as a primary motivation. Returns on businesses started under enterprise programmes are often disappointing (MacDonald, 1996; Rouse, 2004), creating dissatisfaction and casting doubt on business viability for economically driven entrepreneurs. This economic pressure is sustained in later middle age (learning and earning entrepreneurs), although it can be offset in households with more equally shared household work strategies (prestige and control entrepreneurs). In contrast, older women can be relatively free of both childcare and earning demands, liberating them to focus on social entrepreneurship. Thus, embedding explanations of entrepreneur motivations in the gender divisions that characterize different micro-enterprise households is powerful in explaining male as well as female entrepreneurship (Rouse, 2010). Finally, we observe that some entrepreneur motivations may relate to the social relations of ethnicity. Reluctant entrepreneurs exclusion from employment may relate to ethnic discrimination as well as the divisions of class and age. The desire to derive prestige and control from entrepreneurship also seems to be related to ethnic structures, perhaps because poor employment prospects faced by older ethnic minority men defies the status that normally comes with career maturity. Many of these entrepreneurs are also following a role model of using entrepreneurship to create a modicum of social standing, regardless of economic disadvantages. Women from ethnic minorities seem more likely to have a social motive for entrepreneurship, perhaps reflecting a desire to serve a disadvantaged community.

Conclusion
Drawing on sociological theory, we have conceptualized entrepreneur motivation as conditioned by social experience, guiding individual practice and subject to change through novel social feedback and/or personal reflexivity in a continuous process of interaction between individuals and the external

Downloaded from isb.sagepub.com at National School of Political on January 17, 2013

52

International Small Business Journal 31(1)

world. We propose that this complex situation can be researched by examining the relationship between entrepreneur motivations and three dynamic life course domains: career, household and business. We have presented an exploratory test of our conceptual framework. This involved making two significant methodological advances: first, by drawing on prospective accounts of motivation at a particular phase of the business life course (early establishment); and second, by employing a rigorously validated multi-stage cluster analysis to present reliable distinct motivation profiles. The six motivation profiles we identified are: reluctant, convenience, economically driven, social, learning and earning and prestige and control entrepreneurs. Our conceptual claim that entrepreneur motivations are related dynamically to three life course domains is supported by the novel statistical associations presented between early establishment motivation profiles and career and household life course factors. This extends conceptualization of small-scale enterprise as embedded in the life course of the micro-enterprise household (Wheelock et al., 2003) to suggest that it is also embedded in the career life course. Small businesses are constantly developing, and so are situated at any one time within a business life course. Similarly, we have provided a conceptual argument and empirical evidence to link each entrepreneur motivation profile to particular business resources, behaviour and performance. This association has not been investigated in earlier studies (Birley and Westhead, 1994; Cassar, 2007) or could not be demonstrated due to methodological shortcomings. It suggests that entrepreneur motivation and life course research could contribute fruitfully to wider explanations of entrepreneurship experiences. We have suggested that future research might test our conceptual propositions further by studying relationships at different phases in each life course domain, in order to discover whether and how motivations change over time. Studies could benefit from employing a wider range of indicators for each life course phase: in particular, to test more directly the effect of capitals accrued across life course domains on entrepreneur motivation. In addition, there may be a case for studying how motivations relate to the culture and structure of industrial sectors and to the pressures of running high-cost, premises-based and employing businesses, compared with the home-based self-employment prevalent in our study. Qualitative enquiry will be important to identify at a practice level how motivations relate to environmental dynamics. Investigating the wide variety of motivation pathways in entrepreneurship will require a large research programme. Our research has significant potential practical benefits as a conceptual framework to inform intelligent business advice and as a means of segmenting business support. A better understanding of entrepreneur motivations as distinct clusters associated with life course contexts shaped by social structures can help entrepreneurs to understand their own motivations, social embeddedness and potential. Also, it can help entrepreneurs and their advisers to reconcile embedded motivations with business strategy: for example, by linking life course with business planning (Rouse and Kitching, 2006). This approach will be more effective than imposing archetypal notions of the masculine entrepreneur on men and women regardless of their social context, or indeed treating women as deficient in relation to this norm (Marlow, 2002). Equally, our findings can inform policymakers to target resources. For example, policy might expand the entrepreneur labour capacity of convenience entrepreneurs by providing childcare (Rouse, 2010; Rouse and Kitching, 2006), create local area renewal by encouraging innovative learning and earning entrepreneurs, or target older women from ethnic minorities to promote social entrepreneurship. Funding
This project has been developed as part of a project titled Income from self-employment: development of an innovative life course model funded by the Economic and Social Research Council.

Downloaded from isb.sagepub.com at National School of Political on January 17, 2013

Jayawarna et al. Notes

53

1. The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) results indicate a good model fit (2 /d.f. = 2.31, CFI = 0.968, NFI = 0.96 TLI = 0.972, RMSEA = 0.051) with an adequate level of convergent validity (demonstrated by t(CR)), discriminant validity (AVE>0.50) and composite reliability (ranged from 0.69 to 0.88) values. 2. The semipartial R2 value for six clusters is 0.051, while the semipartial R2 values for seven and eight clusters are 0.003 and 0.006 respectively. Therefore, decreasing from seven to six clusters only reduces 0.3 percent of the model explanatory power, whereas a decrease from six to five clusters reduces it by 5.1 percent. 3. In a split sample analysis, where a holdout sample (105 cases) and the calibration sample (106 cases) were separately subjected to discriminant analysis, the classification matrices indicated that 96.5 percent of the holdout sample and 92.7 percent of the calibration sample were correctly classified by the discriminant function. 4. Full results are available on request from the authors. 5. Statistically significant difference between clusters in: individual/household factors (gender, age, level of education, family business experience, ethnicity, hours worked and childcare responsibilities) and business factors (type of investment, risk taking propensity, willingness to learn, determination to stay in business, strategy, growth intentions, sales and turnover growth and satisfaction with profits). Not significant: individual/ household factors (marital status, living costs and perceptions of quality life) and business factors (total investment, turnover and satisfaction with drawings).

References
Ahl H (2006) Why research on womens enterprise needs new direction. Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice 30(5): 595621. Archer M (2000) Being Human. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Archer M (2003) Structure, Agency and the Internal Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baum JR, Locke EA and Smith KG (2001) A multi-dimensional model of venture growth. Academy of Management Journal 44(2): 292303. Birley S and Westhead P (1994) A taxonomy of business start-up reasons and their impact on firm growth and size. Journal of Business Venturing 9(1): 731. Block J and Koellinger P (2009) I cant get no satisfaction: Necessity entrepreneurship and procedural utility. International Review of Social Sciences 62(2): 191209. Bradley H (1996) Fractured Identities: Changing patterns of Inequality. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bradley H (2007) Gender. Cambridge: Polity Press. Brindley CS (2005) Barriers to women achieving their entrepreneurial potential: Women and risk. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research 11(2): 144161. Burke AE, FitzRoy FR and Nolan MA (2002) Self-employment, wealth and job creation: The roles of gender, non-pecuniary motivation and entrepreneurial ability. Small Business Economics 19(3): 255270. Carter NM, Steam TM, Reynolds PD and Miller BA (1994) New venture strategies: Theory development with an empirical base. Strategic Management Journal 15(1): 2141. Carter NM, Gartner WB, Shaver KG and Gatewood EJ (2003) The career reasons of nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing 18(1): 1339. Carter S and Shaw E (2006) Womens Business Ownership: Recent Research and Policy Developments. Report to the Small Business Service. Available at: http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file38330.pdf. Cassar G (2007) Money, money, money? A longitudinal investigation of entrepreneur career reasons, growth preferences and achieved growth. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 19(1): 89107. Crompton R (2006) Employment and the Family: The Reconfiguration of Work and Family Life in Contemporary Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Downloaded from isb.sagepub.com at National School of Political on January 17, 2013

54

International Small Business Journal 31(1)

Deci EL and Ryan RM (1985) Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behaviour. New York: Plenum Press. Dubini P (1989) The Influence of motivations and environment on business start-ups: Some hints for public policies. Journal of Business Venturing 4(1): 1126. Everitt BS, Landau S and Leese M (2001) Cluster Analysis. London: Arnold. Fairlie RW (2005) Entrepreneurship and earnings among young adults from disadvantaged families. Small Business Economics 25(3): 223236. Gartner WB (1989) Some suggestions for research on entrepreneurial traits and characteristics. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 14(1): 2738. Gartner WB (2010) A new path to the waterfall: A narrative on the use of entrepreneurial narrative. International Small Business Journal 28(1): 620. Gartner WB, Shaver KG and Liao J (2008) Opportunities as attributions: Categorizing strategic issues from an attributional perspective. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 2(4): 301316. Halaby C (2004) Panel models in sociological research. Annual Review of Sociology 30(1): 507544. Hart M, Anyadike-Danes M and Blackburn R (2005) Entrepreneurship and Age in the UK: Comparing Third Age and Prime Age New Venture Creation Across the Regions. Small Business Research Centre Working Paper, Kingston Business School. Heckhausen J and Shulz R (1999) Selectivity in life-span development. In: Brandstter J and Lerner R (eds) Action and Self-development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 67103. Heinz W (2002) Transition discontinuities and the biographical shaping of early work careers. Journal of Vocational Behaviour 60(2): 220240. Hessels J, van Gelderen M and Thurik R (2008) Entrepreneurial aspirations, motivations, and their drivers. Small Business Economics 31(3): 323339. Huber G and Power D (1985) Retrospective reports of strategic-level managers: Guidelines for increasing their accuracy. Strategic Management Journal 6(2): 171180. Huberty CJ and Lowman LL (1997) Discriminant analysis via statistical packages. Educational and Psychological Measurement 57(5): 759784. Jayawarna D, Rouse J and Crompton H (2007) The NES Follow-up Survey 2006: An Evaluation of the Experiences of New Entrepreneur Scholars and their Businesses. Manchester: Manchester Metropolitan University. Kolvereid L (1992) Growth aspirations among Norwegian entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing 7(3): 209222. Krueger N and Carsrud A (1993) Entrepreneurial intentions: Applying the theory of planned behaviour. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 5(1): 315330. Krueger NF, Reilly MD and Carsrud AL (2000) Competing models of entrepreneurship intentions. Journal of Business Venturing 15(56): 411432. Kurtoko DF, Hornsby JS and Naffziger DW (1997) An examination of owners goals in sustaining entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management 35(1): 2433. MacDonald R (1996) Welfare Dependency, the enterprise culture and self-employment survival. Work, Employment and Society 10(3): 431447. Mallon M and Cohen L (2001) Time for a change? Womens account of the move from organizational careers to self-employment. British Journal of Management 12(3): 217230. Marlow S (2002) Women and self-employment. A part or apart from theoretical construct? Entrepreneurship and Innovation 3(2): 8391. Maslow A (1943) A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review 50(4): 370396. Masurel E, Nijkamp P, Tastan M and Vindig G (2002) Motivations and performance conditions for ethnic entrepreneurship. Growth and Change 33(2): 238260.

Downloaded from isb.sagepub.com at National School of Political on January 17, 2013

Jayawarna et al.

55

Mayer KU (2009) New directions in life course research. Annual Review of Sociology 35(1): 413433. Milligan GW and Cooper MC (1987) Methodology review: Clustering methods. Applied Psychological Measurement 11(4): 329354. Murray HA (1938) Explorations in Personality. New York: Oxford University Press. Noorderhaven N, Thurik R, Wennekers S and Van Stel A (2004) The role of dissatisfaction and per capita income in explaining self-employment across 15 European countries. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 28(5): 447466. Norusis MJ (2007) SpSS 15.0 Advanced Statistical procedures Companion. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. OBrien M (2005) Shared Caring: Bringing Fathers into the Frame. Equal Opportunities Commission Working Paper No. 18. London: Equal Opportunities Commission. Rouse J (2004) Enterprise, identity and structure: A longitudinal analysis of youth enterprise experiences. PhD thesis, Kingston University. Rouse J (2010) Entrepreneur labour capacity embedded in the TSOL in the micro-enterprise household. Paper presented at the Institute of Small Business and Entrepreneurship Conference, London, November. Rouse J and Boles K (2004) The Big NES Survey 2004: An Evaluation of the Experiences of New Entrepreneur Scholars. Manchester: Manchester Metropolitan University. Rouse J and Jayawarna D (2006) The financing of disadvantaged entrepreneurs: Are enterprise programmes overcoming the finance gap? International Small Business Journal 12(6): 388400. Rouse J and Kitching J (2006) Do enterprise programmes leave women holding the baby? Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 24(1): 519. Scales J and Scase R (2000) Fit and Fifty? A Report prepared for the Economic and Social Research Council. Colchester: University of Essex and University of Kent at Canterbury. Scheinberg S and MacMillan IC (1988) An 11-country study of motivations to start a business. In: Kirchhoff BA, Long WA, McMullan WE, Vesper KH and Wetsel WE (eds) Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley, MA: Babson College, 669687. Segal G, Borgia D and Schoenfeld J (2005) The motivation to become an entrepreneur. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research 11(1): 4257. Shane S, Kolvereid L and Westhead P (1991) Exploratory examination of the reasons leading to new firm formation across country and gender. Journal of Business Venturing 6(6): 431446. Shane S, Locke EA and Collins CJ (2003) Entrepreneurial motivation. Human Resource Management Review 13(2): 257279. Sharir M and Lerner M (2006) Gauging the success of social ventures initiated by individual social entrepreneurs. Journal of World Business 41(1): 620. Shaver KG and Scott LR (1991) Person, process, choice: The psychology of new venture creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 16(2): 2345. Stones R (2005) Structuration Theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Taormina RJ and Lao SKM (2007) Measuring Chinese entrepreneurial motivation. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research 13(4): 200221. Vondracek F and Porfeli E (2002) Integrating person- and function-centred approaches in career development. Journal of Vocational Behaviour 61(3): 386397. Wheelock J, Oughton E and Baines S (2003) Getting by with a little help from your family: Toward a policyrelevant model of the household. Feminist Economics 9(1): 1945. Wu S, Matthews L and Dagher GK (2007) Need for achievement, business goals and entrepreneurial persistence. Management Research News 30(12): 928941.

Downloaded from isb.sagepub.com at National School of Political on January 17, 2013

56

International Small Business Journal 31(1)

Dilani Jayawarna is a Lecturer at the University of Liverpool Management School. She has a wide range of research interests in business management in general and small firm and entrepreneurship in particular. Her current research focuses on business start-ups and modelling entrepreneurial life course using longitudinal data from secondary data sources. Related research interests are in the fields of strategic management and operations management, including quality system implementation and business change management. Julia Rouse is a Principal Lecturer in Entrepreneurship and Deputy Director of the Centre for Enterprise at Manchester Metropolitan University. Through a number of studies she is embedding understanding of entrepreneurship in the life course of the individual, household and business. Specific current projects focus on entrepreneur maternity experiences, theorising the micro-enterprise household, modelling business start-up and entrepreneur wealth creation pathways and critiquing enterprise inclusion policy. John Kitching is Reader in the Small Business Research Centre, Kingston University. His research interests include small enterprise employment relations, skills, learning and training, regulation, diversity, intellectual property and the impact of the recession on small businesses.

Downloaded from isb.sagepub.com at National School of Political on January 17, 2013