text new page (beta)
English (pdf)
Article in xml format
Article references
Automatic translation
Send this article by e-mail
Cited by SciELO 
Similars in
SciELO 
Permalink
Introduction
Beginning an entrepreneurial career
Entrepreneurship is an option for many people (Jiménez et al., 2018; Ynzunza & Izar, 2021), particularly in job contexts characterized by instability, difficulty, danger, and uncertainty (Arango, 2022) and high unemployment rates, such as is the Spanish case. This situation forces people to change their way of thinking about employment and to adopt more active and autonomous models (Marulanda & Morales, 2016). Entrepreneurship is especially an alternative for people who find it difficult to get employment but who, however, have professional competences in some professional area (Baker et al., 2018): people of long-term unemployment and affected by risk and vulnerability factors in the work market (due to age, sex, disability, cultural origin reasons, etc.), and even more so in the case of people previously motivated by the idea of self-employment.
The creation of a firm is a phenomenon linked with cognitive processes, social and intergroup processes (Civila, 2017) but especially motivational processes (Coduras, 2006; Sastre, 2013; Beutell et al., 2019; Charles-Leija et al., 2021); all articulated in an entrepreneurial ecosystem (Østergaard & Marinova, 2018; Spigel & Harrison, 2018). We are going to center on this latter aspect linked with the entrepreneurial professional career.
The decision to start-up a firm involves a very highly motivational process and maintains a close relation with the vital-professional moment that each person experiences when becoming an entrepreneur (Murnieks et al., 2020). The motivation toward entrepreneurship has been present to a lesser or greater extent throughout the history of humanity (Sastre, 2013), although it is intensified in periods of globalization as beneficial possibilities of commercial exchange are opened (Vuorio et al., 2018). On the contrary, this also occurs when society faces strong economic recessions during which job offers are limited or disappear, and the decision to be an entrepreneur becomes a necessity (Martin et al., 2017).
It should be taken into account a career is developed continuously, and many factors intervene in this process which influence the creation and progress of a life project, such as the personal and social relations established, the vital purpose of each person, the availability of resources, the values which guide our way of thinking, acting and behaving, etc. All of this leads us inevitably to considering a career from a complex, multidimensional and self-built model, made up of multiple elements -cognitive, emotional and contextual- that interact among each other to produce achievements (Savickas, 2011; Sánchez-García & Suárez-Ortega, 2018), nurturing in turn the motivational system, which acts a motor of decisions and actions.
The theory of the building of a career insists on the role that adaptability plays, where connections take place between the separate life roles and the influences of the contexts and relations where the activities are developed (Savickas, 2011). Career adaptability a is a psychosocial resource, an adaptive response, which enables people to manage their transitions, their opportunities, their moments of crisis. In turn, it is measured by the capacity of career planning and exploration, and by different features, such as self-efficacy in decision making. A fruit of this is that the person develops a professional and personal identity (Savickas, 2011; Rudolph et al., 2017).
Entrepreneurship is presented as a response of career adaptability and can constitute an example of this capacity of adaptation (Tolentino et al., 2014; Rudolph et al., 2017; Murnieks et al., 2020). The European Commission (2020), in its action plan, proposes some priority areas for intervention, such as entrepreneurial education, the elimination of barriers and limitations for entrepreneurship, and the response to the needs of entrepreneurs in their different phases of the cycle of professional life. It also highlights the urgency of incentivizing resources and reactivating the entrepreneurial culture as a basis to increase motivation for entrepreneurship in the new generations. Meanwhile, the work of Marshall and Gigliotti (2018) becomes relevant from these proposals. This shows the complexity of the development of an entrepreneurial career, as well as the influences which configure this decision-making process, to the extent that a multitude of varied factors interact (personal, contextual, political, economic, familial and role socialization, including sex and other exclusion factors) (Jayawarna et al., 2011; European Commission, 2020).
If we direct our professional decision when beginning an entrepreneurial career, it becomes necessary to underscore that this is a very relevant transition and, at the same time, difficult. Thus, it reflects the conception of entrepreneurship understood as the capacity to make an additional effort to attain a goal or objective (Civila, 2017). In this way, it has been defined as “a solitary, challenging action, full of obstacles and risks for the entrepreneur and his/her family” (Arango, 2017: 12). In this sense, personal factors stand out to the extent that they are a source of diversity per se and that we need to integrate to be able to explain the entrepreneurial intention, motivation and decision (Beutell, et al., 2019). Precisely, associations have been found between career adaptability and distinct psychosocial features, such as cognitive capacity, self-esteem, self-efficacy and, particularly, proactiveness (Rudolph et al., 2017; Savickas, 2011). Concretely, a proactive personality entails a willingness to assume risks, seek new opportunities and achieve personal and professional objectives in changing and uncertain working environments (Baker et al., 2018; Murnieks et al., 2020). Lyons et al. (2015) defend that the so-called “resilient career” is configured as a mediator between the diverse psychological factors which intervene in the career development. In fact, proactiveness is a specially developed quality in entrepreneurial people, as it has been associated with business alertness (Uy et al., 2015), as well as resilience and optimism in the face of adverse or challenging situations (Rudolph et al., 2017).
Marshall and Gigliotti (2018) propose that the people who become entrepreneurs do so from a previous professional career; that is, having made previous professional decisions which mean that they are convinced about the entrepreneurship process. This makes this process even more complex. Likewise, it should be considered that business consolidation is also influenced by factors linked to the company itself and the socioeconomic environment (Arango, 2022). It is worth considering, moreover, that there are few current studies which contribute an explanation about how these factors operate from career theories (Spigel & Harrison, 2018). This is why we need data which enable us to find out more thoroughly how the entrepreneurial intention is configured and what the main motivations are of the people who decide to become entrepreneurs these days (Vuorio, et al., 2018).
Motivation toward entrepreneurship
Motivational theories have emphasized the importance of emotions and beliefs for career success (Beutell, et al., 2019; Su et al., 2020). The feedback between professional motivation and professional adaptability has been spotlighted in different studies (e.g., Hirschi, 2013). In this line, the work of Hirschi (2013) showed that motivational variables, such as goal decision, beliefs of self-efficacy or of the social context are significant predictors of the development of professional adaptability.
Likewise, the development of intentions of entrepreneurship is something mainly motivational, upheld by the person’s capacity of decision and self-direction (Tolentino et al., 2014). The role that motivation plays has been shown to be an essential determinant in the intention to be an entrepreneur and start-up a business (Chua & Bedford, 2016). As well as business success, one finds evidence of a positive relation with consolidated and successful business profiles (Su et al., 2020).
In turn, there is recognition of a diversity of motives for which people make the decision to be an entrepreneur, such as: enjoying independence, freedom or autonomy; earning money; starting up an idea; following the family tradition; personal realization; driven by vocation (Coduras, 2006).
Various classifications have been used in the scientific literature about the motivations to become an entrepreneur. One of the most acknowledged refers to the source from which they proceed: intrinsic and/or extrinsic motivations (Grouzet et al., 2005; Marulanda & Morales, 2016). In the framework of the theory of planned behaviour, associations have been found between career adaptability and entrepreneurial intentions, which is manifested in knowing how to recognize business opportunities, a capacity to mobilize resources or to agilely introduce changes according to the changes in the environment (Tolentino et al., 2014; Østergaard & Marinova, 2018; Spigel & Harrison, 2018).
Various authors insist on the importance of the influences of the context when initiating and developing an entrepreneurial career, such as social, cultural and generational values (Jaskiewicz et al., 2016), the influence of the professional activity sector or environment (Vuorio et al., 2018), or the possibility of access to resources and financing sources (Gutiérrez-Solana et al., 2017). The important role of the family context has also ben underscored (Hilbrecht & Lero, 2014), as the business example lived out since childhood within the family nucleus becomes a stimulus which influences the professional future of its members, given that everyone, to a greater or lesser extent, is involved in the family business. In certain cases, the necessary capacities, skills, attitudes, aptitudes and values which determine the entrepreneur’s profile and characteristics are developed from home (Vican & Luketic, 2013).
To sum up, there exists a range of motivational factors that influence each individual and will significantly mark the development of his/her career, as the action of becoming an entrepreneur entails a willingness from which entrepreneurs give meaning to their life project.
Specifically, in the scientific literature on motivations which boost entrepreneurial activity, two nuclei of fundamental motives are made visible which could explain entrepreneurial behaviour. One of them refers to the start-up which arises as a previously identified business opportunity, or else the vocation or predilection to be an entrepreneur (Fernández-Laviada et al., 2015), and in this sense, Marulanda et al. (2014) state that, when founding a firm, people are guided more by their capacities and marked objectives than by external incentives. Another is identified as a start-up which is driven by necessity (Gutiérrez-Solana et al., 2017), and at times becomes a forced decision, generally due to difficulties to get paid employment (Coduras, 2006).
It seems, therefore, that in each person there can be a confluence of more or less diversified reasons to be an entrepreneur (Østergaard & Marinova, 2018), where factors are intermingled which boost or reinforce the entrepreneurial behaviour (Spigel & Harrison, 2018). Examples are the negative perception about employability, previous experience, an interest in a specific professional area, or indecision facing a career, and also the positive factors related to the emotional dimension and the life / work experience (Su et al., 2020).
Considering the afore-mentioned, in this research two main aims have been defined: (1) to explore and describe the motives which are present in the decision to be an entrepreneur; and (2) to identify motivational profiles according to the variables of classification, such as experience and the situation prior to the entrepreneurial activity. All of this has the intention of describing and explaining the elements which characterize the entrepreneurial motivation and behaviour in the sample of participating Spanish entrepreneurs.
Method
From a quantitative approach, a survey-type research is carried out with an exploratory and inferential character.
Participants
The study has been done with people who are at different moments of their entrepreneurial career; they are grouped into two profiles: (a) Consolidated entrepreneurs, who have had a business activity for more than two years; (b) Entrepreneurs in transition, who began their entrepreneurial activity less than two years ago. A non-random and incidental sampling procedure has been used to select them, establishing criteria of demographic diversity as to the entrepreneurship profile (consolidated and in transition), sex, age, geographical origin and professional practice. The final sample is made up of 965 subjects (sample error of ± 3.2% for a confidence level of 95.5%).
About a third of the sample of participants is made up of entrepreneurs in transition (36,7%), the main part of the sample being consolidated entrepreneurs (63,3%). We observe in the sample a relative balance of sex, there being 12% more men. The age range of the participants is from 15 to 81 years old, the most frequent being between 41 and 50 years old, and the average age being 43 years old (M= 2.31; Me= 2.00; Mo= 2; SD= .702). Having done a contingency table which relates the age (VI) with the motivational profiles (VD), it is determined that at more advanced ages the profile of the entrepreneur is more consolidated (chi-squared significance level = .000). In this sense, and up to 30 years old, 27.6% of the subjects have a consolidated profile, compared to 72.4% of them who are characterized by an in-transition profile. The differences are less in the 31 to 40 years old age range, as 52.5% state that they have a consolidated profile, while 47.5% are in transition. Nevertheless, in the 41 to 50 years old age range, 70.8% of the sample have a consolidated profile and el 29.2% one that is in transition. Lastly, 84.1% of the subjects over 51 years old have declared that they have a consolidated business, compared to 15.9% who do not.
Most of the sample surveyed are entrepreneurs in urban environments, while only a quarter are entrepreneurs in rural or virtual environments. From the geographical point of view, the sample is distributed into 17 autonomous communities, their representation being unequal. A greater participation in the communities of Valencia and Andalusia stands out (73.2%).
Instrument
The questionnaire on Motivation and Conditioners of the Entrepreneurial Career (MCCE) was used as the main data collection instrument. Previously, this instrument was elaborated “ad hoc” and validated through a prior study (Suárez-Ortega et al., 2020; Sánchez-García & Suárez-Ortega, 2017). The questionnaire’s validity was achieved by a criterion of a total of sixteen experts who collaborated in this task: 9 technicians, experts in the area of entrepreneurship, and 7 university researchers of the socio-educational and orientation area (average age 38.2 years old; 10 women and 6 men). Also, its technical qualities of construct reliability and validity were analyzed through applying a pilot sample of 248 entrepreneurs distributed among seventeen Spanish autonomous communities (Suárez-Ortega et al., 2020). The instrument is made up of 67 items structured into four blocks: (a) Sociodemographic aspects; (b) articulation of the professional and personal life; (c) professional career; and (d) motives and needs to be an entrepreneur.
Specifically, the sociodemographic aspects (block a), the data related with the previous professional career (block c) and, particularly, the scale of motives to be an entrepreneur (which is part of block d) are a particular object of analysis in this study. This scale is made up of 9 items with answer options based on a 5-point Likert-type scale (valuations from 1 to 6).
Procedure and analysis done
The access to the sample was done eliciting the collaboration of business organizations and entrepreneurship support bodies. Implementing ethical criteria, the anonymity of the participants was assured by applying the instrument on-line. Likewise, were used the data exclusively for the aims of the research.
Having systematized the database, descriptive, inferential and multivariate statistical analyses were done with the help of the SPSS 24.0 statistical program. Variance analysis (ANOVA) was applied to the most relevant motives for which the subjects have decided to be an entrepreneur in relation with different sociodemographic variables studied, in order to compare if the averages of the groups differ or are similar to each other. Contingency tables were done in the case of categorical variables. Also, a cluster analysis is applied with the aim of grouping together cases according to their distance or similarity; in our case, this is with respect to the variables which make up the motive for which the subjects have decided to be an entrepreneur, to delimit the way in which these are grouped together in conglomerates or clusters. Lastly, the segmentation technique is used through the answer tree, which enables identifying homogeneous groups and specific subgroups, as well as the relations between them, allowing a visual appreciation of the resulting model.
Results
Characterization of the previous trajectory of the entrepreneurs (procedure and analysis done)
With respect to the main reasons for which the respondents have decided to be an entrepreneur, 20.1% (50% men and women, respectively) have expressed that they have become entrepreneurs driven by necessity, as they did not have a better option in the labor market. For 32.9% (42.4% women and 57.6% men), the decision to be an entrepreneur has been opportunity-driven, as they have realized that there existed a business opportunity to benefit from. 47% (40.8% women and 59.2% men) of the respondents declare that they have become an entrepreneur driven by vocation, as this had always seemed to them a real possibility (either for personal interest or for family tradition).
For 65.8% of the sample studied, the business project which they have carried out has permitted them to totally project their vocation and/or professional goals. For 29.8% of the respondents, only to a certain extent have they been able to attain their professional goals. 4.4% have declared that their firm has not enabled them to project their vocation and/or professional goals.
With respect to their work situation prior to the creation of their respective businesses, 39.8% of the sample investigated have informed that they were employees (jobs in the same professional line or area). 33.4% were unemployed. 14.7% have stated that they are immersed in another, previous business project. 6.7% were studying and 0.6% worked in a family business.
Regarding unemployment, they were asked if they previously had to face periods of unemployment or inactivity throughout their professional careers. It is remarkable that 46.7% of the sample have preferred not to answer this question. For the 53.3% who did answer, 32.3% have been unemployed for less than a year, 12.4% for between 1 and 2 years, while 8.6% have been hit by unemployment for more than 2 years.
Likewise, 80.1% of the respondents have worked before as employees (having a work contract, as a volunteer, with a grant, etc.). 72.9% of them had previous professional experience related with the sector of their firm, compared to 27.1% who did not have this experience.
Specific motives for being an entrepreneur
With respect to the motives which have influenced the decision to start-up a business project, approximately 25% of the sample counted on a marked or very marked family business tradition, while in 42.6% this influence has been inexistent or not very significant in their decision to start-up. For 38.2% of the respondents, entrepreneurship is a relevant or very relevant option to get out of unemployment. While 25.5% accord an average importance to entrepreneurship to get out of unemployment; and for the remaining 8.1% entrepreneurship faintly influences avoiding unemployment.
It is noted that for approximately 30% of the respondents, the start-up decision has been marked or very marked by the need to increase their incomes. In the same proportion, another part of the respondents moderately considers having started-up to increase their incomes. However, for 21.2% the start-up decision has not been especially influenced by the need to increase their incomes.
We observe that entrepreneurship is considered as a very good or excellent professional option for about 60% of the respondents. Nevertheless, 3.5% of the sample studied have not been influenced when starting up by considering it to be a good professional option. This aspect may be due to the need to start-up to get a job, and not as a personal and professional desire and achievement.
57.7% of the respondents have manifested that the possibility of projecting their creativity and their ideas to innovate in their respective sectors has marked and influenced them to a great extent when starting up. Only for 3.6% has this motive influenced little or not at all starting up their respective businesses.
As to the possibility of working independently and making their own decisions, most of the respondents (62.1%) indicate that it has influenced them a lot when starting up. Only for 3% has this influenced them little or not at all.
On the other hand, for 41% to be able to improve their social and economic status has been a motive which has influenced them markedly when facing the possibility of starting up; while for 12.5% this aspect has barely influenced them.
With relation to the vocation or prior interest in creating a business, as many as 43.3% of the respondents declare that this has influenced their start-up to a great extent, compared to 14.2% who show little or null identification with this motive.
The possibilities which entrepreneurship can entail for their personal and professional development are also a relevant element for 60%, and only for 2.6% has this influenced them little or not at all in their personal and professional development.
Other reasons for start-up have been identified, according to what some respondents literally express. Among them, to have transformed their hobbies or “passions” into a business: “I work in the sector I like, that is my hobby, and this is priceless”. Also, from a more altruistic approach, it captures the satisfaction of a start-up to contribute to the service of society, for example: “to be able to influence the society I live in”; “with my work I provide a service to the citizenry”; or “to help others, inclusion”. Other motives also present stem from the freedom which they acquire from being their own bosses, specifically: “the luxury of taking sabbaticals to learn”; “the possibility of having more control over my life”; and “to be able to work according to my values”. Finally, the seeking of social transformation with new modes of employability “believing that another economy is possible”.
Influence of sociodemographic variables on the start-up motives
Addressing aim 2 of the study, the variance analysis (ANOVA) has enabled checking the existence of associations of specific motives in the start-up decision in relation to concrete sociodemographic variables. Thus, with respect to the motive of family entrepreneurial tradition (“in my family there’s a business tradition”), highly significant differences are identified according to the entrepreneurial profile, in favor of the consolidated profile (F= 42.423, Sig.000).
As to the motive for propensity toward entrepreneurship (“I always felt like starting up a business”) significant differences are noted linked with sex, with differences of averages in favor of the men (F= 11.065, Sig. 001).
The environment in which their entrepreneurial activity is developed is also a relevant variable in relation with three types of motives: for family business tradition, for need to get out of unemployment and as a way for the projection of creativity and innovation. Table 1 gathers the F values, as well as the degree of significance, along with the averages and the standard deviations.
Table 1 ANOVA. Start-up motives according to the environment.
| Motives= start-up decision | Environment | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rural (N=134) | Urban (N=577) | Virtual (N=70) | ANOVA | Post hoc tests (Sig.0.05) | ||||
| M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | F | Differences between groups* | |
| Family business tradition | 3.62 | 2.105 | 2.84 | 1.993 | 2.46 | 1.630 |
|
Rural>Urban (p=.000) |
| Rural>Virtual (p=.000) | ||||||||
| Way to get out of unemployment | 4.37 | 1.653 | 4.04 | 1.718 | 3.50 | 1.909 |
|
Rural>Virtual (p=.003) |
| Creativity/ innovation | 4.79 | 1.304 | 4.93 | 1.199 | 5.39 | 1.054 |
|
Virtual>Rural (p=.004) |
| Virtual>Urban (p=.013) | ||||||||
* Scheffé-Games-Howell
Source: Author’s own.
Having done a post hoc analysis, it can be noted that the family entrepreneurial tradition predominates in rural environments. The analysis has been carried out via the Games -Howell statistic, as the Levène test attains a degree of sig. 000; that is to say, less than .05 (heterogeneous variance). For its part, the Scheffé analysis has been used for the following two items: unemployment and creativity, having obtained in the Levène test results of .061 and .073, respectively (homogeneity of variances). It is noted that the to get out of unemployment start-up motive is predominantly related with rural and urban environments; while to project creativity and innovation in entrepreneurship is more predominant in virtual environments. Table 2 synthesizes the analyses referring to the motives which have influenced the start-up decision according to the main reason (necessity, opportunity or vocational-driven). It is noted that the highest means correspond to the group which has decided to start-up vocational-driven, except for the items “I consider entrepreneurship as a way of getting out of unemployment” (M= 4.97) and “The need to increase my incomes” (M=4.36), where the highest mean corresponds to those subjects who have started up necessity-driven.
Table 2 ANOVA. Influencing motives+main start-up reason.
| Motives= start-up decision | Necessity (N=156) | Opportunity (N=256) | Vocational (N=69) | ANOVA | Post hoc tests (Sig.0.05) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | F | Diff. between groups* | |
| Family Business tradition | 2.37 | 1.814 | 2.56 | 1.818 | 3.44 | 2.092 |
|
1>3 (p=.000) |
| 1>2 (p=.000) | ||||||||
| Way of getting out of unemployme-nt | 4.97 | 1.207 | 3.84 | 1.689 | 3.80 | 1.827 |
|
3>2 (p=.000) |
| 3>1 (p=.000) | ||||||||
| To increase incomes | 4.36 | 1.524 | 3.62 | 1.622 | 3.51 | 1.709 |
|
3>2 (p=.000) |
| 3>1 (p=.000) | ||||||||
| Good professional option | 4.62 | 1.337 | 4.87 | 1.156 | 5.18 | 1.077 |
|
1>3 (p=.000) |
| 1>2 (p=.002) | ||||||||
| To project creativity/ innovation | 4.37 | 1.410 | 4.96 | 1.107 | 5.19 | 1.108 |
|
1>3 (p=.000) |
| 1>2 (p=.037) | ||||||||
| To work independently | 4.80 | 1.220 | 4.96 | 1.146 | 5.28 | 1.089 |
|
1>3 (p=.000) |
| 1>2 (p=.003) | ||||||||
| To improve social/ economic status | 4.26 | 1.536 | 4.23 | 1.457 | 4.23 | 1.597 | .
|
3>2 (p=.986) |
| 3>1 (p=.981) | ||||||||
| I’ve always felt like starting-up a business | 3.50 | 1.732 | 4.14 | 1.521 | 4.74 | 1.487 |
|
1>3 (p=.000) |
| 1>2 (p=.000) | ||||||||
| Personal/ profesional development | 4.37 | 1.387 | 4.99 | 1.059 | 5.27 | 1.007 |
|
1>3 (p=.000) |
| 1>2 (p=.003) | ||||||||
* Scheffé-Games-Howell: Vocational (1); Opportunity (2); Necessity (3).
Source: Author’s own.
Having carried out the post hoc analyses, via the Games Howell statistic, of those items with heterogeneous variances, and the Scheffé statistic in the cases in which the Levène Test has determined an equality of variances, it is highlighted that the subjects who have started up vocational-driven assume the following statements (items): In my family there is a business tradition; Entrepreneurship seems to me to be a good professional option; To be able to project my creativity and my ideas to innovate in my sector; I like to work independently and make my own decisions; I have always felt like starting up a business; and, It provides me with many possibilities for my professional and personal development, are characteristics of subjects who have started up, to a greater extent, vocational-driven. In contrast, the consideration of entrepreneurship as a way of getting out of employment, as well as the need to increase economic incomes, make up a profile more characteristic of subjects who have started up necessity-driven.
On the other hand, it is noted that to be able to improve their socioeconomic status is a challenge which characterizes all the entrepreneurs, irrespective of the main reason (opportunity-, vocational- or necessity-driven) to start-up.
Table 3 shows an ANOVA analysis which relates the main reasons that have influenced the start-up decision with the profile of the professionals. The items related to the family business tradition and to increase incomes show significant differences as to the entrepreneurial profile. Thus, it is noted that the consolidated profile has received a greater influence from its family business environment. For their part, the entrepreneurs in transition value to a greater extent to be able to increase their economic incomes.
Table 3 ANOVA. Start-up motives according to profile.
| Motives which have influenced the start-up decision | Profile | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consolidated (N=503) | In transition (N=278) | ANOVA | |||
| M | SD | M | SD | F | |
| Family business tradition | 3.28 | 2.061 | 2.32 | 1.753 | 42.423 (Sig. 000) |
| Increase incomes | 3.60 | 1.673 | 3.92 | 1.660 | 6.921 (Sig. 009) |
Source: Author’s own.
Likewise, a contingency analysis has been done crossing the variables start-up reason with prior situation and length of previous unemployment periods. In Table 4 it is noted that those subjects who have decided to start- up vocational-driven, had already worked before in similar professional areas and/or family business (chi-squared= .000). Also, it is showed that the subjects who have started up necessity-driven have undergone unemployment to a greater extent and for longer periods (Chi-squared= .000).
Table 4 Previous situation/previous unemployment+main start-up reason.
| Start-up reason | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Necessity-driven | F | Opportunity-driven | F | Vocational-driven | F | ||
| Previous Situation | Unemployed | 60.0% | 99 | 31.0% | 84 | 23.6% | 91 |
| Same line jobs | 24.8% | 41 | 47.2% | 128 | 41.0% | 158 | |
| Previous business | 9.1% | 15 | 12.2% | 33 | 19.0% | 73 | |
| Studying | 1.8% | 3 | 6.3% | 17 | 9.1% | 35 | |
| Family business | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 1.3% | 5 | |
| Other situation | 4.2% | 7 | 17.9% | 9 | 6.0% | 23 | |
| Length (years) of previous unemployment periods | <1 | 31.3% | 52 | 32.1% | 87 | 32.8% | 127 |
| 1-2 | 20.5% | 34 | 12.5% | 34 | 8.8% | 34 | |
| <2 | 18.7% | 31 | 7.4% | 20 | 5.2% | 20 | |
| Not appropriate | 29.5% | 49 | 48% | 130 | 53.2% | 206 | |
Source: Author’s own.
Motivational profiles facing entrepreneurship
Through the cluster analysis (Figure 1) a configuration of two clusters associated with the start-up motives has been identified.
The first cluster shows that for the respondents to start-up prominently means “to be able to project their creativity and their ideas to innovate in their sectors” (M= 4.95; SD= 1.213) and it “provides them with many possibilities for their personal and professional development” (M= 5.00; SD= 1.159). Whilst “they like to work independently and make their own decisions” (M= 5.08; SD= 1.151), given that “entrepreneurship seems to them a good professional option” (M= 4.97; SD= 1.178). And in this sense “they have always felt like starting-up a business” (M= 4.30; SD= 1.619). At a greater distance, the analysis also reveals that of the sample studied 30% (M=3.71; SD= 1.675) have started up due to “the need to increase their incomes” and 41% “to be able to improve their social and economic status” (M= 4.23; SD= 1.538). Likewise, 38.2% consider “entrepreneurship as a way of getting out of unemployment” (M= 4.05; SD= 1.735).
On the other hand, the second cluster, and at a more distant level, shows us that only 25% (M= 2.94; SD= 2.008) of the sample studied has been influenced and has started up because “there is a business tradition in their families”. Table 5 gathers the predominant characteristics which configure each of the conglomerates, related to sex, age, entrepreneurial profile and the environment where the users have started up and developed their respective businesses.
Table 5 Predominant characteristics which configure the conglomerates.
| Conglomerate | Sex | Age ranges | Profile | Environment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ramification 1 | Without distinction | <41 | Vocational/ Opportunity-driven | Without distinction |
| Ramification 2 | Without distinction | >40 | Necessity-driven | Rural | |
| 2 | Ramification 1 | Male | <51 | Vocational-driven | Rural |
Source: Author’s own.
Having carried out a contingency analysis which relates the variables - main start-up reasons and entrepreneurial profile - significant differences have been found, demonstrated by the level of significance obtained via the chi-squared coefficient, which had attained a value of (.000). As is noted in Table 6, the consolidated profile is characterized by a mainly vocational-driven start-up decision. In both profiles (consolidated and in transition), they have started up necessity-driven in similar percentages, around 50%.
Table 6 Main start-up reason+entrepreneurial profiles.
| Start-up reason | Consolidated | F | In transition | F |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Necessity-driven | 49.4% | 82 | 50.6% | 84 |
| Opportunity-driven | 63.8% | 173 | 36.2% | 98 |
| Vocational-driven | 70.8% | 274 | 29.2% | 113 |
Source: Author’s own.
Finally, to determine the entrepreneurial profile of the study sample, a segmentation analysis has been elaborated. The quest procedure has been used as a growth method (dev. Error .014; correct percentage: 71.9%).
The segmentation analysis has provided an answer tree shown in Figure 2, through which we can check that the variable which best predicts the entrepreneurial profile is the age of the entrepreneurs studied.
The profile of the consolidated entrepreneur is characterized by being older (< 2.0 = from 41 years old) (node 2) and is more consolidated as the entrepreneur increases in age.
It stands out that the consolidated profile’s professional career is characterized by the absence of long periods of unemployment (less than a year), in comparison with the profile of entrepreneurs in transition who have suffered longer unemployment periods (even more than 2 years) (node 1).
Age is also a determinant factor within the consolidated profile, given that those subjects who are over 50 years old have had a significant influence of a family business tradition. In the light of this, it is noted that those who are older have declared a greater family influence in their decision to start-up their own businesses, compared to younger entrepreneurs. In turn, those over 50 years old who have been less influenced by this family tradition motive (valuations less than 2.6) (node 7) compensate this absence with a previous work situation characterized by prior experience in jobs in the same professional line or area. They have also developed other previous professional projects or have been studying (79%); the entrepreneurs in transition to a lesser extent (21%) (node 9).
Discussion
In this research the entrepreneurs have declared that the decision to start-up a business is influenced mainly by independence and being able to make their own decisions. This aspect coincides with the GEM report (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, Spain 2017-2018) (Gutiérrez-Solana et al., 2018), where it is evident that the main motivation to start-up is the achievement of a greater independence. Also, the entrepreneurs have stated that having a firm permits them many possibilities of personal and professional development. This feature coincides with the study carried out by Sastre (2013), where it was made explicit that mainly attitude is prioritized to start-up and, less so, material resources. Botsaris and Vamvaka stress this aspect (2016), stating that the business attitude is more strengthened by the gratifying intention of starting up than by obtaining extrinsic or instrumental incentives.
Nonetheless, as Gadar and Yunus (2009) inform, economic incomes and earnings quantitatively increase as experience augments. It is therefore more usual for these to be expressed in consolidated entrepreneurs (Su et al., 2020). This can be a reference for nascent or in- transition entrepreneurs as a stimulus of future development and business consolidation. This is reflected in the research carried out by Arango (2022) when he states that business consolidation depends largely on the degree of productivity, the employment generated and business profit, among others.
In the same way, the respondents back creativity and being able to innovate in their work sectors; an essential element to propitiate economic growth and, with this, social development (Arango, 2017). It is worth highlighting that the previously described profile is more characteristic of those entrepreneurs with consolidated businesses who have decided to start-up opportunity and/or vocational-driven.
Some of the respondents have considered entrepreneurship as a way of getting out of unemployment, although they have declared that primordially they have not started up to increase their incomes but “to have incomes”. To begin a business as a way to get out of unemployment has been a characteristic feature of those subjects who have started up necessity-driven. Other research (Dvouletý et al., 2018) concludes that a great percentage of people who were previously unemployed and have decided to start-up have made this decision necessity-driven, with respect to other subjects who had a job and were active. In this sense, there exist various studies which point to necessity-driven start-ups having been increasing in the last decade, reversing the balance when it is a question of a vocational-driven start-up (respectively 66% compared to 27%, approximately). Likewise, the index of consolidated entrepreneurs increases when the start-up is opportunity-driven (Gutiérrez-Solana et al., 2017).
On the other hand, only a part of the sample studied has been influenced by the family business tradition, this being an element that is more characteristic of older entrepreneurs who have a consolidated profile and are from a rural origin. This aspect coincides with the research of Arango (2017) in determining that the family tradition is not a primordial booster to start-up, contrary to what tends to be considered.
We also note that a significant percentage of the entrepreneurs have worked before in sectors related with their entrepreneurial activity, either in the same professional line and/or area. This is why it is seen that they do not begin from “zero” but have prior professional experience which enables them to know the work area in greater detail, to achieve personal and professional success. This prior professional experience favors people developing and carrying out their business ideas (Gielnik et al., 2018). People with more experience know to a greater extent the initial activities necessary to start-up, such as acquiring financial resources, the development of a service or a product (Eesley & Roberts, 2012) and the planning processes linked with business action (Østergaard & Marinova, 2018). However, Gadar and Yunus (2009), after carrying out a study in Malaysia with 685 business women, find that the access to an entrepreneurial career is weakly correlated with previous professional experience, not noting a correlation with the age factor. Notwithstanding, these authors highlight the interaction of other factors in an entrepreneurial career, such as information, relations, the perception of the economic environment and management values as key characteristics specifically for women who decide to start-up their own businesses. All this is in line with the latest works on the factors involved in entrepreneurial development (Østergaard & Marinova, 2018; Spigel & Harrison, 2018; Murnieks et al., 2020).
This study, in short, has made it possible to identify differentiated motivational profiles between entrepreneurs in transition and consolidated entrepreneurs, highlighting the importance and power of intrinsic motives, such as vocation, the search for development possibilities, the creativity or the drive to innovate, which is more associated with entrepreneurship by vocation and opportunity than entrepreneurship by necessity. Another relevant predictor found in this study is the experiential component, that is, the professional career prior to entrepreneurship, or the entrepreneurial experience itself, in which family experience in entrepreneurial environments is inserted. Consistently, older age also appears as a predictor of the consolidated profile. These findings lead us to consider that entrepreneurship out of necessity has its risks if it is not accompanied by previous professional experience or other intrinsic motivations. Thus, the study provides knowledge to guide those who are ready to undertake, through self-exploration of the motives and their own trajectory, together with the understanding of the socioeconomic environment.
Conclusions
The study confirms the existence, in the Spanish context, of three major categories of entrepreneurship according to the main motive which has boosted the start-up. Firstly, vocational-driven start-up, more frequent among those who had worked in similar professional areas and/or family businesses; also, opportunity-driven start-up, made up to a greater extent of those with previous experience in the sector. In both cases, their motivational systems are more associated with the possibility of projecting creativity and innovation, and the chances of personal and professional development. Lastly, necessity-driven start-up, which tends to be composed of people who have previously suffered longer periods of unemployment and, to a certain extent, those who already had experience in the same professional sector; and their most frequent motives were of an extrinsic nature, mainly to increase incomes, improve their social and economic status, and as a way of getting out of unemployment.
This study concludes that the entrepreneur in transition is more associated with a profile of a necessity-driven start-up, but also has a certain presence of opportunity-driven start- up and, to a less extent, vocational-driven. These people mainly look forward to getting a job and being able to increase their economic incomes. A high percentage of them would not doubt about closing their own businesses faced by other work possibilities. The lack of better professional opportunities (they have frequently suffered periods of unemployment), at times forces the individuals to start-up and this gives rise to their beginning their businesses with diverse motivations. For its part, consolidated entrepreneurs are more frequent in vocation-driven and opportunity-driven start-ups but are also very present in necessity-driven start-ups. It is more usual for them to have had a previous career in jobs of their business activity and to have had a greater influence of the family business environment in their decision to start-up. This leads us to think that this variable can be a predictor of the consolidation of entrepreneurial projects.
It should also be mentioned that the limitations of the study are related with the quantitative approach used and its typical and inherent biases, exempt from the nuances which a qualitative approach could complementarily provide. Also, the sample used for the selection of the participants has been intentional and, consequently, the participation in the survey was subject to the voluntary collaboration of the entrepreneurs.
Lastly, we stress that there exist promising opportunities to broaden the research in this field, such as exploring different contexts and to continue going thoroughly into the motivational profiles of entrepreneurs in order to foster actions of assessment and orientation which help them to satisfactorily construct and manage their vital and professional project. To this effect, to incorporate and combine a mixed approach in the research would enable us to go more deeply into the study topic from diverse methodological facets. At the same time, other variables that may affect the entrepreneurial career could be studied, such as the type of company, its size, or the productive sector, among others.
