SUMMARY
The hypotheses formulated in the dissertation sought answers to a complex question - the entrepreneurial phenomenon. Because of its interdisciplinarity, this was a great commitment of me. The breakthrough point where I have thought to find my responses were in the field of economics psychology / behaviour economics, so I needed broad new interdisciplinary knowledge making both the approach and the explanations complex.
Although the thesis was written this year (2017), yet for the past decade, I have been researching the questions and the answers of this topic via readings and researches. I tried to investigate the relevant findings of economics, system theory, entrepreneurship and economic psychology.
In the course of reviewing the topics of my scientific lectures (30+) and writings of the past decade, they all brought me a little closer to the main statements of the dissertation now completed. I recall several exciting and enjoyable moments of reading, learning and professional debates, the results of which I hope are welcomed by my colleagues and my fellow researchers.
In my dissertation, I have reviewed a considerable amount of literature, the reason for which is, as I have stated above, that I have summarised basic concepts of several fields of science, supplemented with the most recent literature. I have summarised literature review in four major chapters that can each be linked to the given hypothesis and can lead the reader to conclusions.
Four hypotheses were formulated in the dissertation:
H1: I have assumed, for the basic pillar of the entrepreneurial ecosystem that the so-called hard elements, such as infrastructure, legal and commercial regulatory conditions, government support, capital and money market conditions are nonetheless important, but the quality of the ecosystem will be more determined by the so-called soft factors. Behind these soft factors lie management capacity, resulting from school and out-of-school entrepreneurial training, social-societal values and thus culture, which provides the courage, the relaxed conditions for experimentation and a significant social support (guard-net) for the re-start after the failure.
H2: I have identified the reconsideration of the business-process approach as a second challenge. Based on literature and my observations, I intended to demark the stage of brainstorming more precise than the position of the currently accepted entrepreneurial approaches does. I think that the entrepreneurial process itself is essentially a short stage in the corporate life cycle that is preceded by brainstorming and then followed by the growth phase, which is again followed by the consolidated organisational cycle.
H3: Thirdly, I have stated that very few meet the accepted entrepreneurial definitions based on literature and my experience. All this led me to look at the entrepreneurial roles and their related competences and common personality characteristics. Here, a secondary goal has been identified which might create a new business category that prototypes the expectations of classical entrepreneurial definitions. It was named that is, Non-Conventional Organizations (NCO) (together with my fellow research partner, Zoltán Csigás).
H4: Last but not least, based on my experiences, my previous research and literature I have formulated an organisational competence profile description that describes the survival minimums of organisations (I have named them the KO criteria). Over the last sixty years, we have learned a lot about the organisations' excellent operational capabilities, but the phenomena that make a company excellent may not be helping it to survive. Now, the first level is to keep the organisation alive at the ever-increasing competition. I sought these minimum criteria, what they might be.
I have formulated my hypotheses on three levels and seeking for the way of evidencing. The highest level was the social-societal approach where I tried to find answers regarding the entrepreneurial ecosystem. The question was what criteria and conditions of the ecosystem are needed to make the members of the ecosystem successful. I retained my hypothesis here, since I was able to justify with strong data that there is indeed a relationship between the quality of the entrepreneurs and the ecosystem profile.
At the middle level (organisational level), I have applied a minimalist approach. I was looking for critical organisational features that make organisations survive. I reversed the message of excellence models. I believe that the recipe for success could lead to far, but if we did not solve the mandatory tasks before, then it is pointless to talk about this very high quality level. Here, too, I have found organisational phenomena that are essential to be displayed in the competence inventory of the organisation (dynamic capacity, organisational two-handedness). In addition, I have identified an organisational phenomenon profile that is novel not regarding its elements, but in its system-level approach. These elements were called KO criteria. In the study, I included as the starting point an organisational model created with my previous research associates (COVΛ model).
At the bottom, at the micro level, I was dealing with the individual, the entrepreneur. I have reviewed the validity of entrepreneurial definitions and have identified that life cycle phases of businesses should be shaped differently. Here, my basic conclusion is that the brainstorming phase should be separated from the enterprise shaping stage and it should be demarked from the growth phase as well as from the later consolidated corporate phase.
Entrepreneurial process
Invention➡What is this?➡Chaos and Growth ➡Consolidation
Most important actor and its most important role
Inventor / Idea Man➡Entrepreneur / Producer➡Crisis /
Change Manager ➡Manager
35. Figure 1: The main actor of a high-level entrepreneurial process. The author's own work
I have identified the tasks to be solved for the organisational stages, the competences needed for the solution, and competences regarding the roles (Figure 35). I have dealt with roles in point of enterprises, the display of which has a significant influence on the operation of businesses. I declare that the particular entrepreneurial role can be captured by a personality profile and a competence pattern rather than an average entrepreneur.
During the study, I worked with a new methodology that was named 'post mortem'. This is basically, as it is in its name, an ex post, post-event evaluation of a particular phenomenon. I have looked at the cease of non-operating companies (n = 388), and have concluded results of their aggregated data.
Based on research in the literature and my experiences, I attempted to supplement Lewin's basic formula (B=f(P,E), where the external environment (E) and the internal psychic (P) define behavioral (B) functions (f)) by entrepreneurship (Be=fe {(De,E)×exe}).
As a scientific novelty, I see the results of the accomplished work in a eight smaller steps, as reported in the chapter on scientific innovations (5.2).
This thesis is a milestone, an important stage in my research and the cognitive process in which I have been fortunate to be actively involved in more than a decade...