Ahmedabad University Conference on Management (AUCOM – 2015)

Title of the Paper: Perception of Entrepreneurial Success forSmall Family Businesses: A General Framework

Kunal Mankodi and Priyank AcharyaAbstractIndian family businesses have been in existence since long and

represent a majority in the Indian industry. They have a

substantial impact on the wealth and prosperity of the families.

How do these family business entrepreneurs look at success? Do

they focus more on financial determinants or the non-financial

ones? This in turn, influences growth and prosperity of their

ventures. In this qualitative analysis, we present self-reported

definitions and determinants of success among entrepreneurs /

family business owners in Ahmedabad. While some respondents

defined success in terms of profits, many used non-financial

factors such as number of clients, years in business, or because

of networking. The most important success factor was client

relationships and networking. The paper ends with a framework

IntroductionFamily businesses have increasingly become more important in

terms of their contribution the Indian economy. They are the

engine of wealth management of the well to do families who are

focusing on creating and then building wealth across generations

(Amit et al, 2009). The perceptions of success in

entrepreneurship in businesses may be particularly important

since intergenerational survival and success require an enduring

“entrepreneurial orientation across generations” (Chrisman et

al., 2014 and Chrisman et al., 2003). Yet, little is known

regarding factors which impact entrepreneurial orientation, and

drive the organizational entrepreneurship (Dess and Lumpkin, 2005

and Memili et al., 2010).

This research paper explores “entrepreneurial success” from the

perspective of entrepreneurs across two generations.

Literature Review

Entrepreneurial success is a concept that fails to offer an

agreeable definition, yet it is commonly agreed upon that the

society benefits from successful entrepreneurship (Casson, 2003)

and thus entrepreneurial achievement is a vital concept to

understand. It can be concluded that on the grounds that society

and grant concur entrepreneurial achievement exists, we ought to

have the capacity to catch and measure it, and along these lines

have a decent understanding of it. Yet there is differing

qualities in both the estimation and recognizable proof of

accomplishment markers for entrepreneurial achievement, proposing

its vicinity can be subject to individual viewpoint. Clearing up

the build may support recognizing when it is available or has

been attained to, and the pointers that can enable the

measurement of it.

Yet there is diversity in both the measurement and identification

of achievement indicators for entrepreneurial success, suggesting

its presence can be dependent on individual perspective. It is

because of this subjectivity that the entire outlook of the

business and its strategy development can be really different

even when the same business context is evaluated by different

members of a family businesses. Furthermore, knowing the type of

individual who can achieve entrepreneurial success may have

important implications for efficiently allocating resources and

minimizing the costs of entrepreneurial failure (Caliendo and

Kritikos, 2008). This research aims to contribute to the body of

knowledge that evaluates perception of entrepreneurial success.

This research is from the perspective of entrepreneurs a cross

two generations and use these insights to find factors which we

then subject to cluster analysis. We proceed as follows. First we

briefly review literature on entrepreneurial success and failure

and subsequently develop our research objectives. We then present

our discussion, conclusions and research limitations.

Literature Review

The word “success” is defined as the favorable or prosperous

termination of attempts or endeavors (“Dictionary.Com”, n.d.).

However, what is considered favorable to one individual may not

be to another, and similarly an indicator for the achievement of

prosperity will vary across domains, metrics, and viewpoints

(Rosemary Fisher et al, 2014). The term entrepreneurial success

is used to refer to the success of a venture or business

activity, and sometimes the success of the entrepreneur connected

to the venture.

What is entrepreneurial success?

Entrepreneurial success is an incident that seems to be

understood by implication or context. It is more often referred

to in a grammatical construct when talking about success in the

context of entrepreneurship. Used in this manner, the term

incorporates other constructs in its meaning that could be

conceptualized with varying indicators, such as the successful

entrepreneur, the entrepreneur’s success, and the venture’s

success (see e.g. Crane and Crane, 2007). Entrepreneurial success

can also be found as a dependent variable in empirical research,

sometimes without an operational definition. A review of the

entrepreneurship literature suggests entrepreneurial success is

understood to be present by its indicators; however, these

indicators are broadly conceived. The indicators can exclude or

include typical business, economic, psychological, and social

indicators; include survival beyond a certain timeframe; or

simply constitute being in existence (that is, being a registered

business entity). The different theoretical perspectives of

effectuation, causation and bricolage may contribute differently

to the behaviors associated with entrepreneurial success (Fisher,

2012). Entrepreneurial success may also have a temporal aspect;

it is achieved at this point in time and thus can be transient in

nature. Entrepreneurial success is informed by cultural issues or

is dependent on individual perspective (Rauch and Frese, 2000).

For example, venture capitalists and the entrepreneurs seeking

their funds were found to have different perceptions of

entrepreneurial success (Black et al., 2010). The attainment of

wealth is a typical indicator of success (McMullen and Shepherd,

2006); yet other research shows many entrepreneurs do not

necessarily consider attainment of wealth as a measure of their

success (Alstete, 2008). Gender differences also affect

perceptions of success. Men use external standards to benchmark

success, such as gaining prestige or recognition for

accomplishment; whereas respondents use internal definitions of

success, such as whether they accomplished what they set out to

(Burger, 2008; Cliff, 1998).

How is entrepreneurial success measured? Entrepreneurial success

is frequently measured through the use of performance indicators.

However, choosing performance indicators from the myriad of

financial and operational sources was once recognized as one of

“the thorniest issues confronting the academic researcher today”

(Venkatraman and Ramanujam, 1986). Two decades later,

operationalizing and measuring entrepreneurial performance

remains problematic. Identifying indicators of entrepreneurial

success is problematic because it has many different dimensions

and is a multistage process (Brockner et al., 2004). Furthermore,

each indicator of entrepreneurial success is a multidimensional

phenomenon in its own right, as exemplified by the work on the

heterogeneity of growth indices (Delmar et al., 2003). Rauch and

Frese (2000) observe that choosing to examine only one aspect of

entrepreneurial success is restrictive because it does not

illuminate all the processes involved in success. An indicator of

success from one view may imply unsuccessful business activities

from another (Davidsson et al., 2009), such as large profit

margins in the context of taxation planning (Rauch and Frese,

2000). Nonetheless, performance indicators are attractive indices

for researchers because they are recognized as being less prone

to common method bias (Maritz and Nieman, 2006). Fried and Tauer

(2009) propose an index of entrepreneur success that comprises

total cost (the resources used by the enterprise), owner hours

(the commitment and effort of the entrepreneur to the

enterprise), total revenue, and revenue growth. Liechti et al.

(2009) develop performance factors that comprise entrepreneurial

success using industry-adjusted scales, aggregate income and

return on initial invested capital. Caliendo and Kritikos (2008)

measure entrepreneurial success in terms of how many employees

were hired after a venture launch. Entrepreneurial success is

also variously measured by goal achievement, economic success,

lifestyle success, and company growth (Rauch and Frese, 2000;

Steffens et al., 2012).

What are the antecedents of entrepreneurial success? Researchers

have investigated the antecedents of entrepreneurial success and

used these as proxies for, or inferences of, its presence.

Antecedents of entrepreneurial success are readily identified in

the literature and include economic, psychological, sociological,

and management factors. Economic factors include the effective

use of planning and strategies, innovation, entrepreneurial

orientation, and tough environmental conditions (Rauch and Frese,

2000). Psychological factors include need for achievement, locus

of control, low risktaking, human capital, problem-solving

orientation, assertiveness, interpersonal reactivity, self-

leadership aimed at maintaining a positive attitude and

persistence (Caliendo and Kritikos, 2008; D’intino et al., 2007;

McClelland, 1961), self-efficacy (Nel et al., 2008), and a blend

of analytical, creative, and practical aspects of intelligence

(Sternberg, 2004). Being currently engaged in entrepreneurship

and enjoying the rewards of so doing (independence, freedom, job

satisfaction, and money) indicates “success” (Alstete, 2008).

Social factors include the strength of social networks and the

social skills of the entrepreneur (Brush, 2008; Walske et al.,

2007). Management factors are also accepted antecedents for

entrepreneurial success. Visioning and bootstrapping (Brush,

2008) contribute to entrepreneurial success. Minimum cost output,

used as a proxy for entrepreneurial success, was found to be

significantly related to its antecedents: entrepreneur’s

qualifications, aim pursued, and the training scheme utilized

(Bonet et al., 2011). Being currently engaged in entrepreneurship

and enjoying the rewards of doing so (independence, freedom, job

satisfaction, and money) indicates “success” (Alstete, 2008).

Wadhwa et al. (2009) find experience, management teams, learning

from successes and failures, and luck are the most important

factors that contribute to entrepreneurial success. Surviving

beyond start-up stage is also an indicator of achieving success.

Similar antecedent factors for success are observable in

entrepreneurs from both developed and developing regions (Tipu

and Arain, 2011). In general, entrepreneurial competencies are

recognized as critical to entrepreneurial success (Mitchelmore

and Rowley, 2010).

What is entrepreneurial failure? Some see failure and success as

interrelated concepts (McGrath, 1999). There is a body of

literature that sees failure as instructive for successful

entrepreneurship, if not a prerequisite to it (Gulst and Maritz,

2011). Like entrepreneurial success, constructs for

entrepreneurial failure are operationalized by both subjective

and objective indices, and an agreed definition for

entrepreneurial failure is also the subject of scholarly

discussion. Definitions for entrepreneurial failure, like many

for entrepreneurial success, incorporate venture related

benchmarks or indices (see McKenzie and Sud, 2008 for a

discussion of the literature). McKenzie and Sud (2008) define

entrepreneurial failure as “deviation from the entrepreneurs’

desired expectations,” and incorporate strong entrepreneurial

vision as a central determinant in failure sense making. How are

the indicators of entrepreneurial success used? Indicators are

used to explain, predict, and identify the presence of

entrepreneurial success. Kumar (2007) uses psycho-social

processes to develop a conceptual framework that explains

entrepreneurial success, defined as the interplay between

individual capabilities and environmental requirements. Black et

al. (2010) investigated the likely traits, skills, or abilities

present in individuals to predict entrepreneurial success.

Business, economic, and qualitative indicators (such as meeting

challenges or overcoming obstacles) are used to identify the

presence of entrepreneurial success (Brush, 2008; Cliff, 1998;

Venkatraman and Ramanujam, 1986).

How do we know entrepreneurial success is achieved? A variety of

generally accepted or idiosyncratic mechanisms, proxies,

indicators, and judgments have been used to recognize the

achievement of entrepreneurial success. For example, taking

entrepreneurial action has been used to imply, or be a proxy for,

the achievement of entrepreneurial success. However, using

entrepreneurial actions as indicators of success can vary

according to the phase of the entrepreneurship’s life cycle (Van

Gelderen et al., 2006); include a range of business behaviors

such as creating a new venture, innovation, business ownership,

and managing a large business (Verheul et al., 2005); be inferred

as a consequence of opportunity recognition and exploitation

(Ardichvili et al., 2003); and be identified by venture growth

(Baum and Locke, 2004) or growth indices (Achtenhagen et al.,

2010). Individual incubator organizations develop their own

standards for determining the achievement of entrepreneurial

success (Zwerus, 2013), and both internal and external factors

have been found to influence the success of technology based

start-up firms (Berte and Neely, 2009). Selecting a determinant

to indicate the presence or achievement of entrepreneurial

success can differ according to the level of analysis applied,

varying between individual, firm, small, or large organizations

(Rauch and Frese, 2000). By implication, success in

entrepreneurship is characterized by the presence and perception

of advantages or rewards (Alstete, 2008), and also by comparison

between entrepreneurs (Fairlie and Robb, 2008). Entrepreneurial

success can be assumed because the venture is ongoing, or ongoing

when other ventures have left the market (Douglas, 2001; Hogarth

and Karelaia, 2008). The type of entrepreneurship also influences

which indicators of success are employed. For example, a social

entrepreneurship may not use wealth maximization as a measure of

success (Austin et al., 2006), but instead choose indicators

based on the reach, uptake, or impact of their activities.

Entrepreneurs that strive to create value (Bolton and Thompson,

2005) or use a value-packed vision to drive their ventures

(Brush, 2008) could employ an individualized and diverse range of

indicators to identify entrepreneurial success. The achievement

of entrepreneurial success is often confirmed retrospectively

after considering the history of the entrepreneur’s venture. It

can be transitory in nature; for example, entrepreneurs who lose

their once successful ventures as a consequence of economic,

societal or environmental disturbance or change. Some accepted

measures of entrepreneurial success can be the product of

artifice or fraud, which may be present at the start of the

venture or develop during the entrepreneurial journey; as

exemplified by the collapse of Enron Corporation (McLean and

Elkind, 2004).

We have established there is a diversity of perspectives on what

constitutes entrepreneurial success. Following Achtenhagen et al.

(2010, p. 289) we seek to reflect the perceptions of in

developing this construct so that it is “meaningful and relevant

to entrepreneurs” and consequently useful in empirical research

that will in turn be used to inform practice. Thus, this paper

explores the phenomenon of entrepreneurial success from the

viewpoint of entrepreneurs. We begin by drawing from these

entrepreneurs their understanding of success, how they recognize

it and what indicates its presence; and use this to develop

indicators of entrepreneurial success. This research uses two

studies: one to explore, conceptualize, and develop a construct

for entrepreneurial success; the second to develop a scale for

entrepreneurial success. The following sections report the

results of these two studies.

Brush (1992) finds that respondents entrepreneurs tend to have a

variety of goals. Rosa et al. (1994) found that respondents

entrepreneurs pursue intrinsic values over financial gain.

3. Method

3.1 Respondents

Respondents were drawn from a pool of ex students of

Entrepreneurial MBA Programme and the regular MBA Programme of

Ahmedabad University, all with a background of family business,

all of whom joined the same after their graduation.

The size of the company is ‘Small’ as defined by Gartner1 (less

than 100 employees) and by annual revenues (<$50 mn)

A total of 15 respondents (11 males and 4 females) participated

in this qualitative study to enable the researchers to understand

success criteria which are important for owners of small

businesses. The representation of these businesses varied across

industries and sectors viz., paper manufacturing, café,

restaurant, construction, plastic products trading, jewelry,

chemical trading, textiles (manufacturing), garment trading and

stock broking business .

3.2 Procedure

The researchers first explained the purpose of the study to the

respondents telephonically. Interviews were conducted by one of

the researchers and the other researcher noted down the points.

Semi-structured, open-ended questions were used as the primary

data-gathering instrument.

First, a brief of background information on her business,

including year registered, type of ownership, generation of

entrepreneurship. Finally, each entrepreneur was asked to discuss

his / her understanding of entrepreneurial success along the

lines of variables identified in literature review. These

included Financial (Wealth Creation – stemming from lower cost or

higher revenues) and Non Financial Rewards: - Personal

Satisfaction, Pride in Job, Flexible Lifestyle, Autonomy. The

names of the entrepreneurs have been coded to protect anonymity.

4 Results

Table 1 presents the demographic data of the respondent

entrepreneurs. The majority of the businesses (66%) were product

manufacturing oriented (10/15). Most of the current generation

entrepreneurs were between an age range of between 22-24.

Table 1

Demographic and Company Background Details:

Respond

ent

Gender Year of

Establish

Industry Type of

Ownership

Generati

ons?

ment

R01 M 2005 Construct

ion

Partnership 2nd

R02 F 2002 Construct

ion

Partnership 2nd

R03 F 2013 Café

Owner

Sole

Proprietorshi

p

Founder

R04 M 1997 Paper Mfg Sole

Proprietorshi

p

2nd

R05 M 1989 Paper Mfg Sole

Proprietorshi

p

2nd

R06 M 2001 Plastics

Trading

Sole

Proprietorshi

p

2nd

R07 F 2006 Solar

Heater

Assembly

Sole

Proprietorshi

p

2nd

R08 F 1973 Jewelry

Making

Sole

Proprietorshi

p

3rd

R09 M 1988 Jewelry

Making

Sole

Proprietorshi

2nd

p

R10 M 1987 Chemical

Trading

Sole

Proprietorshi

p

2nd

R11 M 1994 Textiles Partnership 2nd

R12 M 1992 Textiles Partnership 2nd

R13 M 2010 Quick

Service

Restauran

t

Sole

Proprietorshi

p

2nd

R14 M 1998 Garment

Wholesale

r

Sole

Proprietorshi

p

2nd

R15 M 2009 Stock

Broking

House

Sole

Proprietorshi

p

Founder

4.1 Defining Business Success

Business success definitions comprise objective and

subjective aspects (Butler & Rhodes, 2004). The participants

of this study incorporate both types of metrics in defining

the entrepreneurial success. A summary is given below:

Table 2: Summary of respondents and their success criteria

Resp.

Code

Gende

r

Industry /

Sector

Success Criteria Variable/s

R01 M Construction Financial;

Non Financial

Size of Contract;

Client Prestige

R02 F Construction Financial

Non Financial

Revenues

Brand Name

R03 F Café Owner Non Financial Customer Centric

R04 M Paper Mfg Non Financial No. of International

Clients

R05 M Paper Mfg Non Financial Be different from

competitors

R06 M Plastics

Trading

Non Financial Growth – Diversification

R07 F Solar Heater

Assembly

Financial Survival and Expansion

R08 F Jewelry Financial; Non

Financial

Revenue growth;

Persistence

R09 M Jewelry Non Financial No. of Clients, Loyalty

R10 M Chemical

Trading

Non Financial;

Financial

Satisfaction (being

independent), Networking;

Turnover

R11 M Textiles Financial Volume due to low profits

R12 M Textiles Financial Profits

R13 M Quick Service

Restaurant

Non Financial Repeat Customers,

Independence, Satisfaction

R14 M Garment

Wholesaler

Financial Turnover

R15 M Stock Broking Non Financial Clientele

House Financial

Margin

R01 – construction- defined success in terms of the size of

contracts and the number and perceived prestige of their

clients. “We were able to win big bids so we must be good or

somehow different from others – predominantly with the value

proposition of quality at competitive rates.”

Contrary to Reavly and Lituchy (2008), R02, a woman

entrepreneur from to a well known real estate company in

Ahmedabad rated financial measures – specifically revenue

generation so as to have liquidity for more schemes and

expand the company’s presence, thereby creating a strong

brand image.

R04 of the Paper Manufacturing background stated, “Honestly,

our most successful aspect of our business has been the

large clientele from international markets.”

R05 from paper manufacturing company said “Our strategy was

to produce for foolscap notebook makers by offering high

grade quality paper and after sales policies that no one

else offers.”

R09 – (Jewelry) defined success in terms of both the

increasing number of clients and the formation of long-term

relationships with them. “This industry is very competitive

and there are many jewelers in Ahmedabad and hence the key

for us is maintaining relationships with clients so that

they become our repeat customers. This is one thing I have

learnt from my dad”, the said.

Another respondent in the jewelry business, R08, the owner

of two jewelry shops viewed success as having been able to

overcome hard times and expand her business. For her,

success was also measured in terms ability to run the

business and to keep her family together during the

difficult times she had witnessed for her father. Now she

wants to take it to newer heights.

Both the respondents from the textile industry, R11 and R12,

are heavy on financial measures of success. R11, the owner

of a textile manufacturing company with meager margins and

high volumes target, stated “For us financial returns and

numbers, even though not properly recorded, are the main

criteria survival as well as success of business.” Whereas

R12 manufacturers apparels for a well known retailer and so

relatively the profit margins are higher for his business.

Café owner (R03) commented, “What excites me the most is

that my customers – youngsters predominantly, are fond of

visiting my outlet which is relatively new. Sitting at the

counter, interacting with them when I can, I know for sure

that they like our joint. We have a message board where I

get a lot of thank you notes from the whole of Ahmedabad”.

Her motives reflect a more customer-centric orientation to

entrepreneurship although firm growth is still critical to

her but comes as a result of her ‘non-businesslike’

approach.

Entrepreneur R07 defined success as survival and expansion

of the business, which is assembly of solar powered heaters

used by industries. Initially, the target was getting

through the first 1000 days of business as a thumb rule for

creating awareness, tight cost control wherever possible so

as to minimize losses as far as possible. Now, after

difficult first three years owing to low market acceptance

and technological sophistication, the company started to

cover the market of Gujarat with their networking

capabilities. Their primary target now is to grow in the

Gujarat base and then address profitability later.

R06 shared that his uncle had no experience in plastics

industry or plastics trading when he started the company.

“The great success is that the firm is still in the market

despite very strong competition.” I want to continue the

legacy by diversification in terms of trading for

international clients and entering other related product

markets.

Entrepreneur respondent R10 imports and sells ‘chemical dyes

and pigments.’ He revels in the freedom that owning his own

company has brought the family and enjoys meeting the ‘great

people’ that his business brings her into contact with. The

other parallel indicator is turnover to earn higher margin

overall.

R14, a readymade garment wholesaler believes in sales

turnover for survival in competitive market. Lowest in

annual sales turnover from the entire respondent set, he

highlights the difficulty of extra efforts to put in to

satisfy a large family’s demands.

For R13, owner of an upmarket restaurant in Ahmedabad,

customer loyalty matters the most as it ensures repeat

customers and an associated goodwill. He added, “I’m not

employed by someone else, but instead I make decisions and I

spend my time in the ways that most satisfy me. If I am

independent, satisfied and in a right frame of mind, the

money should take care of itself.”

The only pure service respondent from the set was R15, owner

of a small brokerage house dealing with equity markets. “In

a market where there are several players, it is important to

win the confidence of investor client by delivering

consistent results. I believe word of mouth works really

well in this industry and that can only happen through

consistent results of my recommended scrips for buying and

selling. Then obviously if I am able to prove my ability,

retained business will help me earn my share of brokerage

also”, he said.

Based on the inputs received from this qualitative research, the

authors propose the following framework which they intend to

validate through qualitative research.

Framework:

Based on the identification of success variables: financial as

well as non financial from the point of view of a small firm (as

defined earlier), the authors purport that their might a

significant relationship between the entrepreneur’s orientation

and understanding of success while taking control of a small

firm. Financial variables are well known from literature. The

authors propose that non-financial variables can further be

classified in terms of two factors:

a) Entrepreneur Centric (Independence, Satisfaction,

Flexibility of Work – Life Balance, Ability to Maintain

Control; and

b) Business Centric (Survivability, Client Centric Approach,

Expansion, Brand Name)

We propose that while the achievement of Business Centric success

factors is likely to impact Entrepreneur Centric factors as well,

the reverse cannot be said. Entrepreneurs who are primarily

motivated (dominated) by Entrepreneur Centric factors, are likely

to engage in strategic decision making which is driven by control

and hence are not likely to grow the company. This might as a

result of an inward success drive or just because of a matter of

choice to maintain control.

Figure 1: Framework for Small Business Success Criteria and Future Growth

Prospects

Small Firm SuccessCriteria

Financial

WealthMaximizationFocus on Cost

Non Financial

EntrepreneurCentric

Independence Satisfaction Flexibility of

Work – Life Balance

Business Centric

Survivability Client Centric

o Clienteleo No. of domestic and

international clients

o Prestigeo Customer Orientation

Repeat Customers (Loyalty)

Expansiono Geographic

Firm r

emai

ns

small

Firm Grows in Sizethereby probable change

Conclusion and Discussion

According to the respondents of this study, financial and non

financial measures of success are both vital to businesses and

determine their ability to access financial resources, satisfy

customers and plan strategically. The strong orientation to non

financial measures such as customer relationships may be critical

to the long-term survival of the firm.

The entrepreneurs in this research had relatively different age

businesses. Some were young. Three of the businesses were less

than 5 years old and all of them prioritized building client base

and relationships to address short term survival and long term

value. It may be that these juvenile businesses can afford to use

multiple measures of success as they struggle to establish

themselves (Reavly and Lituchy, 2008). Once established, though,

growth is intimately linked to profitability.

There are many aspects to consider over and above the realm of

this paper. Can bankers measure customer satisfaction or client

strength as directly as profitability? Would this lead to better

financing decisions? How would that affect investment decisions?

How does a family business ensure smooth transition of small size

to a medium and then a large one, because these business sizes

also alter the definition of success.

Through the framework presented earlier, we propose that

succession planning for family businesses is likely to be

affected by business success perception of current and successor

generations. How to integrate the two to ensure smoother

succession planning and running of a business?

Each of the success determinants deserves further research. In

particular, more needs to be known about the role of profit at

each stage of the life cycle of the entrepreneurial enterprise.

This qualitative research is based on interviews with 15

respondents from different industries. The findings may be

limited because of the sample size, and therefore may not be

generalized to respondent entrepreneurs from other industries and

/or other generations of entrepreneurs from within and outside of

the regions examined.

References:

Rhodes, C., & Butler, J. S. (2010). OrganizationalMembership and Business Success: The Importance ofNetworking and Moving Beyond Homophily. Challenge(1077193X), 16(1).

Helen R., Raija Komppula, (2007) "Perception of success andits effect on small firm performance",Journal of SmallBusiness and Enterprise Development, Vol. 14 Iss: 4, pp.689- 701

Welsh, D. H. B., Memili, E., Rosplock, K., Roure, J., &Segurado, J. L. (2013). Perceptions of Entrepreneurshipacross Generations in Family Offices: A Stewardship TheoryPerspective. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 4(3): 213-226.

Rosemary Fisher Alex Maritz Antonio Lobo ,(2014),"Evaluating entrepreneurs’ perception of success ",International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour &Research, Vol. 20 Iss 5 pp. 478 – 492

Eva Kašperová, John Kitching, (2014),"Embodyingentrepreneurial identity", International Journal ofEntrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 20 Iss 5 pp. 438-452 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ IJEBR-07-2013-0108

Gerry Segal, Dan Borgia, Jerry Schoenfeld, (2005),"Themotivation to become an entrepreneur", International Journalof Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 11 Iss 1 pp.42-57 http:// dx.doi.org/10.1108/13552550510580834

Elizabeth Chell, (2013),"Review of skill and theentrepreneurial process", International Journal of

Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 19 Iss 1 pp. 6-31http:// dx.doi.org/10.1108/13552551311299233