Journal of Business Research 101 (2019) 433–440

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

Entrepreneurial success and achievement motivation – A preliminary report T

on a validation study of the questionnaire of entrepreneurial success
Marcin W. Staniewskia, , Katarzyna Awrukb
⁎

a
Faculty of Management and Finance, University of Economics and Human Sciences in Warsaw, Poland
b
Faculty of Psychology, University of Economics and Human Sciences in Warsaw, Poland

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Since interest of researchers in entrepreneurial success is growing incessantly, the need for methods allowing
Entrepreneurship quantitative measurement of this phenomenon through the development of a tool having the psychometric
Entrepreneurial success parameters of accuracy and reliability becomes more and more pronounced. Therefore, there are pilot studies on
Achievement motivation the Questionnaire of Entrepreneurial Success in progress, which examine a new tool enabling accurate and reliable
Theoretical accuracy
quantitative measurement of entrepreneurial success. The present report elaborates on the initial findings re-
garding theoretical accuracy of the Questionnaire of Entrepreneurial Success. The first part of these findings was
already presented in the article “Questionnaire of Entrepreneurial Success – Report on the Initial Stage of Method
Construction.” The study was carried out in Poland and examined 144 entrepreneurs running a business in various
voivodeships for at least 4 years. The following tools were employed: The Questionnaire of Entrepreneurial Success
(QES), Achievement Motivation Inventory (AMI), General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES), Entrepreneurship Efficacy
Scale (EES), and the Self-Esteem Scale (SES). This part of the study was intended to demonstrate the character of
the relationships between entrepreneurial success and achievement motivation. In the course of the study, sig-
nificant correlations between entrepreneurial success and achievement motivation were revealed (e.g., Flexibility,
Courage, Faith in success, Dominance, Preference for difficult tasks, Independence, and Objective orientation); thereby
confirming the theoretical accuracy of the Questionnaire of Entrepreneurial Success. Further in-depth correlation
analysis led to the conclusion that the adopted perspective on entrepreneurial success modifies these correlations
(i.e., short-/long-term subjective perspective and short-/long-term objective perspective). The achievement mo-
tivation dimensions of Elasticity and Dominance were found to correlate with entrepreneurial success (from each of
the four perspectives separately). The results of comparative and profile analyses showed that entrepreneurial
individuals demonstrating high entrepreneurial success obtained higher scores in AMI, EES, SES, and GSES.
Furthermore, significant differences were revealed in terms of flexibility, dominance, self-esteem, effectiveness of
gathering market information, business entrepreneurial efficacy, and generalized sense of self-efficacy (compared
to entrepreneurs showing low entrepreneurial success). The initial pilot study examining the Questionnaire of
Entrepreneurial Success supports the claim that the tool has good psychometric parameters.

1. Introduction which analyze both the predictors (i.e., the elements allowing one to
predict possible entrepreneurial success) and the indicators (i.e., the
Although entrepreneurship has many forms and definitions, it is instruments indicating success) of entrepreneurial success. However, in
unquestionably a favorable phenomenon because it greatly contributes the majority of cases, this is a qualitative measurement, which makes
to the economy and society (Przepiorka, 2017). Much research on en- those methods weak. Therefore, our intention is to design and develop a
trepreneurship has been emerging for years, and it might seem that it quantitative measure of entrepreneurial success that incorporates good
has already been thoroughly studied and further studies are un- psychometry parameters. We believe that it will be a valuable con-
necessary. However, as far as entrepreneurship is concerned, one needs tribution to entrepreneurship research, especially when we consider the
to realize that the benefits only arise from a successful business (which lack of similar tools. As we mentioned in the previous paper (Staniewski
is understood differently by the researchers and the entrepreneurs & Awruk, 2018), the available tools are relatively poor and en-
themselves). There are also numerous studies available on this topic, trepreneurial success is often operationalized as “single-item indicators

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (M.W. Staniewski).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.01.073
Received 11 June 2018; Received in revised form 14 January 2019; Accepted 16 January 2019
Available online 11 March 2019
0148-2963/ © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
M.W. Staniewski and K. Awruk Journal of Business Research 101 (2019) 433–440

or questions ‘unrelated’ to one another,” such as Does your business still entrepreneurial success, for example, income from self-employment,
operate, Do you employ workers, and Are you happy with running your exit, and survival rates, and job and wealth creation (Joona, 2018).
business. A similar situation is observed in Poland. In Poland, we possess Fried and Tauer (2009) offer an index of entrepreneurial success that
the Entrepreneurship Efficacy Scale by M. Łaguna, which measures takes into account the total costs (i.e., the resources that an enterprise
Bandura's self-efficacy concept in the entrepreneurial context. In this uses), owner hours (i.e., how much effort and commitment is required
context, entrepreneurship efficacy is defined as “the strength of a person's from the entrepreneur to run the enterprise), total revenue, and revenue
belief that he or she is capable of successfully performing the various roles growth. Liechti, Loderer, and Peyer (2009) propose performance factors
and tasks of entrepreneurship” and it is a concept similar to but not the indicating entrepreneurial success that include industry-adjusted scales,
same as entrepreneurial success. aggregate income, and the return on initial capital. Nevertheless, the
In summary, to better understand entrepreneurial success and to fill significance of the non-financial indicators of entrepreneurial success
the literature gap, we designed and developed a new entrepreneurial cannot be ignored (Razmus & Laguna, 2018).
success method. At this stage, we have the initial version of the en- Caliendo and Kritikos (2008) test entrepreneurial success against
trepreneurial success method, and the results from the utilized psy- the number of employees that were hired following the venture's
chometry parameters are promising (high reliability and good theore- launch. Entrepreneurial success is also measured using goal achieve-
tical accuracy). In this report, we present the second part of the results ment, economic success, lifestyle success, and company growth (Rauch
for the theoretical accuracy of the Entrepreneurial Success & Frese, 2000; Steffens, Davidsson, & Fitzsimmons, 2012). The mea-
Questionnaire. Thus, this study was aimed at verifying the theoretical surement is based on objective indicators, although some researchers
accuracy of the questionnaire by determining the relationships between claim that subjective indicators are significant as well (Fisher et al.,
entrepreneurial success and achievement motivation. 2014). Unfortunately, the concept is neither appropriately defined nor
The article contains a literature review aimed at discovering (based thoroughly studied (Wach et al., 2016). Subjective success is often ex-
on new scientific research) the entrepreneurial success factors and amined through the self-reporting of an entrepreneur's satisfaction with
possible tools that measure the success. Next, the research methodology the business's performance, growth, and status (Powell & Eddleston,
adopted to develop the QES, the research findings, and the final con- 2008). Should entrepreneurial success be perceived as the fulfilment of
clusions are presented. some subjective criteria, studying entrepreneurial motivations could
offer insight into the criteria that are valuable for entrepreneurs and
2. Literature review that show subjective success (Wach et al., 2016). Orser and Dyke (2009)
see subjective entrepreneurial success as a multi-dimensional construct
Entrepreneurial success (ES) is defined as “a complex phenomenon comprising market acceptance (i.e., the criteria of commercial success),
and it includes multiple criteria of a financial and non-financial char- professional autonomy (i.e., self-fulfilment), financial outcomes, and
acter” (Dej, 2010, p. 91). Initially, ES was equated almost exclusively work–life balance. Gorgievski, Ascalon, and Stephan (2011) supply
with economic/financial indicators (Zhou, Zhou, Zhang, Obschonka, & further empirical evidence demonstrating the multi-dimensionality of
Silbereisen, 2017). Some examples include the following: efficiency, success and they provide a ranking of 10 success criteria that are be
growth, profits, liquidity, market share (Murphy, Trailer, & Hill, 1996), based on people- and business-oriented dimensions. Conversely, re-
earnings, firm size, probability of survival (Fried & Tauer, 2015), and search by Fisher et al. (2014) demonstrates that entrepreneurial success
the growth in the number of employees (Sullivan & Meek, 2012). has a one-dimensional structure that comprises four items differ-
However, the simplest definition of entrepreneurial success can refer to entiating individual and business indicators. However, numerous lim-
the mere fact of continuing to run the business and existing in the itations of the above-mentioned methods examining entrepreneurial
market (as a registered business) (Fisher, Maritz, & Lobo, 2014). When success highlight the need to further explore and develop a tool that
considering entrepreneurial success, the competitive element allowing satisfies the psychometric parameters.
the comparison of entrepreneurs cannot be neglected (Fairlie & Robb, It is also worth noting that apart from making attempts to define
2008). Therefore, an entrepreneur who continually operates in the entrepreneurial success and its indicators, many researchers tried to
market may consider themselves to be successful, though the success explain the factors contributing to this success. The typical en-
seems greater when more other businesses (i.e., competitors) fail trepreneurial success factors include the following: gender (Muis,
(Douglas, 2001; Hogarth & Karelaia, 2008). Suleeman, & Riyanti, 2017), motivational traits (Baum, Locke, & Smith,
Nevertheless, limiting entrepreneurial success to solely economic 2001; Stewart Jr & Roth, 2001), experience, and expertise (Chandler &
indicators does not reflect its full meaning (Wach, Stephan, & Jansen, 1992), skills, and knowledge (Abu et al., 2014), cultural atti-
Gorgievski, 2016) and thus its definition should not be limited in such a tudes toward entrepreneurship (Yusof, Jabar, Murad, and Ortega,
way (Sarasvathy, Menon, & Kuechle, 2013). Wach et al. (2016) stressed 2017), having a well-defined concept, extensive planning prior to ex-
the need to assess entrepreneurial success using subjective criteria (that pansions, target market clarification, family support, location, and
are applied by entrepreneurs). However, this approach focused on the competition awareness (Parsa, Self, Njite, & King, 2005), achieving a
entrepreneurial perspective (Fodor & Pintea, 2017). Over time, re- work-life-balance (Camillo, Connolly, & Kim, 2008), engaging in in-
searchers have been revealing increasingly more significant indicators novative activities (Ojo, Petrescu, Petrescu, & Bilcan, 2017), and having
of entrepreneurial success. Murphy et al. (1996) believe that en- documented business plans (Agarwal & Dahm, 2015).
trepreneurial success seen through the prism of external indicators is of To recapitulate the analysis of entrepreneurial success factors, it
little significance if the entrepreneur does not see themselves as a should be noted that they fall into two categories (Gupta &
successful individual. Studies show that numerous entrepreneurs do not Mirchandani, 2018; Ramadani, 2015):
necessarily equate success with wealth (Alstete, 2008), and some of
them highly appreciate a work-life balance (especially women (Bullini − environmental factors, such as the accessibility of financial re-
Orlandi, 2017). Therefore, it should be acknowledged that any form of sources, support from the government, the accessibility of the social
success may be perceived both subjectively and objectively (Fisher capital, training programs, consulting services, and physical infra-
et al., 2014). As it turns out, the perception of success may even differ structure (Bahari, Jabar, & Yunus, 2017); and.
according to the entrepreneur's sex. Male entrepreneurs see success as − personal factors, such as psychological traits, the entrepreneurs'
gaining prestige or acknowledgement whereas female ones perceive the educational attainment, motivation, and engagement.
implementation of their plan as a success (Burger, 2008; Cliff, 1998).
It is thus not surprising that when faced with such an abundance of As far as entrepreneurship is concerned, there are two noteworthy
definitions, researchers have different ideas about how to measure ways to view motivation: 1) through the prism of the motives “pushing”

434
M.W. Staniewski and K. Awruk Journal of Business Research 101 (2019) 433–440

an entrepreneur to establish a business and 2) as an internal achieve- between entrepreneurial success and the dimensions of achievement
ment motivation. This division fits within the framework of the division motivation were omitted.
of “motivation” offered by the relevant literature, which comprises the Therefore, the present article is complementary to the previous re-
following categories: incentives (external rewards), and drive theory port and illustrates the results of the correlation and comparative
(internal needs) (Carsrud & Brannback, 2009), or the push and pull analyses carried out on the scores in the QES and the Achievement
motives (Staniewski & Awruk, 2015). The first group (of the motives Motivation Inventory.
behind starting a business) includes factors such as the following: self-
realization, family security, employees' relations to societal contribu- 3.1. Research sample
tions (Edelman, Brush, Manolova, & Greene, 2010; Lukes & Stephan,
2012; Walker & Brown, 2004), the achievement of important goals The research sample comprises a group of 144 entrepreneurs aged
(Shane, Locke, & Collins, 2003), the idea of developing new technology, between 24 and 70 years (M = 42.49; SD = 10.29). At the moment of
the affirmation of one's own values or acquiring a higher social status establishing their business, the majority of these entrepreneurs were
(Staniewski, 2009). Therefore, as far as this group of motivators is 30.36 years old on average (SD = 7.12; min. = 18; max. = 47). There are
concerned, entrepreneurial success is achieved when the entrepreneur 54 women (37.5%) and 90 men (62.5%) among the respondents. Most of
fulfils their initial motivation (e.g., prestige or social status) through the the entrepreneurs who participated in the study registered their business
business. It is thus a more nuanced outlook on the success factors in the mazowieckie Voivodeship (N = 114 people; 79.2%). Other voivo-
(Wach, Stephan, & Gorgievski, 2016). deships where the respondents had companies are the following: ku-
In the context of entrepreneurial success, the notion of achievement jawsko-pomorskie (N = 3/2.1%), podlaskie (N = 1/0.7%), wielkopolskie
motivation seems equally significant. This term is deeply rooted in the (N = 1/0.7%), podkarpackie (N = 2/1.4%), warmińsko-mazurskie
traditional research. Studies on the term were initiated by Henry Murray (N = 6/4.2%), łódzkie (N = 6/4.2%), małopolskie (N = 3/2.1%), lu-
and continued by David McClelland. Achievement motivation may be buskie (N = 2/1.4%), śląskie (N = 1/0.7%), and lubelskie (N = 2/1.4%).
referred to as “striving for achieving the best possible outcome which has an The location of the registered office was not disclosed by 3 respondents,
established standard of perfection and hence may result in success or failure” which is 2.1% of the sample. The majority of the entrepreneurs under
(Klinkosz & Sękowski, 2013, p. 7; McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, examination claimed to have neither professional management experience
1976). Achievement motivation is associated with a preference for in running a business (i.e., 94 people/65.3% responded No and 50 people/
moderate risk, taking personal responsibility for results, using feedback 34.7% responded Yes) nor a successful entrepreneur in the family (67
to modify performance, and having a restless expressive style people/46.5% responded Yes and 75 people/46.5% responded No).
(McClelland, 1967). Thus, people with a high achievement motivation However, they admitted to having had training before commencing their
have three characteristics: 1) a preference for work with a defined scope business (including training sessions and post-graduate or other courses)
of personal responsibility, 2) the ability to set realistic goals whose (i.e., 74 people/51.4% responded Yes and 70 people/48.6% responded No)
likelihood of fulfilment is estimable, and 3) the need for gratification and and having contacts with clients (i.e., 110 people/76.4% responded Yes,
feedback on progress (Klinkosz & Sękowski, 2013). As indicated by nu- and 33 people/22.9% responded No).
merous studies, achievement motivation seems significantly related to As of the day of the study, no company of the respondents was
entrepreneurial success (Collins, Hanges, & Locke, 2004; Mahadea, 2008; suspended or deregistered. The companies commenced between 1983
Singh, 1978) and income (Lerner, Brush, & Hisrich, 1997). Considering and 2013 (Mo = 2010). As a result, the mean time of the operations of
the results of extensive research demonstrating significant positive cor- these businesses was 13.02 years as of the beginning of 2017
relations between achievement motivation and entrepreneurial success, (SD = 7.11, min. = 4, max. = 34). The businesses were local (62 re-
the next step (in the validation study of the Questionnaire of En- spondents/43.1%), Poland-wide (36 respondents/25%), regional (26
trepreneurial Success) was the analysis of the correlations between respondents/18.1%), and international (20 respondents/13.9%). The
achievement motivation and entrepreneurial success, which is the pri- mean number of employees in these companies amounted to 11.92
mary objective of the present report. people (SD = 27.85, min. = 0, max. = 200). Profits (N = 135/93.8%)
rather than losses (N = 8/5.6%) were earned by the majority of the
3. Research aim and method companies. This information was withheld by one respondent (0.7% of
the sample). A rise in the turnover in the previous year was noted by
Our objective was to present the initial results of the pilot study on 118 people (81.9%) and a decrease by 26 people (18.1%). Financial
the psychometric parameters (of reliability and accuracy) of the liquidity was maintained by 130 entrepreneurs (90.3%), whereas 13
Questionnaire of Entrepreneurial Success (which is a new tool quanti- (9%) did not maintain liquidity, and a single respondent (0.7%) failed
tatively measuring entrepreneurial success from four perspectives: to answer. Most of the individuals under examination believed they had
short- and long-term subjective perspectives, and short- and long-term high development potentialities (i.e., 69 respondents/47.9%) while the
objective perspectives). Thus, as initially intended, besides providing a minority saw their chances as average (i.e., 63 respondents/43.8%) or
quantitative indicator of entrepreneurial success (i.e., the total score), low (i.e., 11 respondents/7.6%). One entrepreneur did not assess their
the questionnaire informs about the entrepreneur's “business efficacy” potential for growth, which is 0.7% of the sample.
in various time perspectives.
The report is a continuation of “Questionnaire of Entrepreneurial 3.2. Tools
Success – Report on the Initial Stage of Method Construction” (Staniewski &
Awruk, 2018), which contains a detailed description of how the tool 3.2.1. The Questionnaire of Entrepreneurial Success (QES) (experimental
was designed, the procedure and aim of the pilot study, some of the version)
findings (including the intercorrelations, discriminatory power of test This is the authors' 38-item self-reporting tool measuring en-
items, and Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficients), and part of the trepreneurial success in individuals running a business for more than
analyses of the theoretical accuracy (i.e., a presentation of the corre- one year. The QES is useful in scientific research, especially group
lations between entrepreneurial success – measured with the Ques- studies. The questionnaire has two parts. The first one measures short-
tionnaire of Entrepreneurial Success – and the scores of the En- term success (where the previous year is taken into account) and the
trepreneurship Efficacy Scale (EES), Self-Esteem Scale (SES), and second considers long-term success (i.e., the lifetime of the business,
General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES)). However, due to editorial limita- excluding the final year). The questions were selected for each ques-
tions, the presentation of part of the findings regarding theoretical ac- tionnaire part in such a way as to allow for the measurement of the
curacy of the QES was left out – and so the analyses of the correlations approach to entrepreneurial success from both the subjective and

435
M.W. Staniewski and K. Awruk Journal of Business Research 101 (2019) 433–440

objective perspectives and thus enable the measurement of this success points and serves as a general indicator of the sense of one's own effi-
from four different perspectives (i.e., the short-term subjective, long- cacy. One can obtain between 10 and 40 points. A higher score in-
term subjective, short-term objective, and long-term objective per- dicates a higher sense of one's own efficacy. Cronbach's alpha demon-
spectives). The result is calculated for each part/perspective separately strated that the reliability of the questionnaire was 0.85.
by adding up the points obtained for the relevant items (following the
key). The total number of points in both parts serves as a general in- 3.2.6. The personal details datasheet
dicator of entrepreneurial success (representing the period between the This is the authors' tool for gathering fundamental socio-demo-
business's commencement and the day of measurement). The score graphic information on an entrepreneur under examination (such as
range is between 50 and 150 points. A higher score obtained in the test their age, age at the moment of commencing business, and sex) and
indicates a higher level of entrepreneurial success. The respondent is information about the business (such as the year of commencement, the
asked to express their view about each test statement by selecting any voivodeship where the company's registered office is situated, its
of the three available options: Definitely yes, A little yes and a little no, or number of employees, its scope of activity, etc.).
Definitely no.
4. Results
3.2.2. The Achievement Motivation Inventory (AMI)
This is a 170-item tool developed by Schuler, Thornton, Frintrup, and The theoretical accuracy of the Questionnaire of Entrepreneurial
Prochaska that was translated to Polish by Klinkosz and Sękowski Success (QES) was verified with the analysis of the correlations between
(2013). The tool measures achievement motivation with 17 scales (each the scores in the QES and the scores in the EES, SES, GSES, and AMI.
having 10 items each) that represent 17 aspects of motivation: Flexibility, Since the distributions of the scores in the subscales of the QES (i.e.,
Fearlessness, Preference for Difficult Tasks, Independence (self-reliance), short-term subjective entrepreneurial success and short- and long-term
Confidence in Success, Dominance, Eagerness to Learn, Goal Setting, Com- objective success) were not close to the normal distribution, the cor-
pensatory Effort, Status Orientation, Pride in Productivity, Engagement, relation analyses were based on Spearman's rho correlation coefficient
Competitiveness, Flow, Internality, Persistence, and Self-Control. (with the use of SPSS 24). Part of the correlation analyses – between the
The respondent completes the questionnaire by expressing their scores in the QES and the scores in the EES, SES, and GSES – were
opinion on each statement by selecting an adequate response option already presented in “Questionnaire of Entrepreneurial Success – Report on
ranging from 1 – This does not concern me at all to 7 – This fully concerns the Initial Stage of Method Construction” (Staniewski & Awruk, 2018).
me. The score in each scale (10–70 points) is calculated by adding up the Therefore, this report focuses on presenting the results of the analyses
points from the subscale items. The total score is the sum of all scores in of the correlations between the QES and the scores in the dimensions of
all 17 scales. The Cronbach's alpha demonstrated the reliability levels of the AMI. Additionally, to summarize the results obtained in the course
the scales (for the group of employees) as being between 0.68 and 0.84. of the first pilot study on the QES, the differences in the intensity of the
The reliability of the total score in the given group was 0.96. variables (i.e., achievement motives, sense of efficacy, self-appraisal,
and business efficacy) were analyzed in the groups of entrepreneurs
3.2.3. The Entrepreneurship Efficacy Scale (EES) that demonstrated high and low entrepreneurial success.
This is a 21-item tool developed by Łaguna (2006) that measures the As expected, the scores obtained in the QES were significantly corre-
conviction about one's efficacy in terms of setting up a business. The lated only with some of the dimensions of the Achievement Motivation
questionnaire comprises 3 subscales: Efficacy of collecting market in- Inventory. Short-term subjective entrepreneurial success was significantly
formation (6 test items), Financial and legal efficacy (5 test items), and correlated with Flexibility, Preference for difficult tasks, Faith in Success,
Efficacy of business activity (10 test items). The scores are calculated by Dominance, Objective orientation, and Persistence. Long-term entrepreneurial
dividing the total number of points in the whole questionnaire and the success was significantly correlated with Flexibility, Courage, Persistence,
number of points in the subscales by the number of statements to de- and Self-control. Likewise, short-term objective success was significantly
monstrate the mean intensity of the conviction about one's own effi- correlated with Flexibility, Courage, Dominance, and Status Orientation.
cacy. A higher score indicates a greater intensity of this conviction. The Meanwhile, long-term objective success was significantly correlated with
respondents provide a response on a 100-degree scale, where 0 means I Dominance and Compensatory Effort. Thus, it seems that entrepreneurial
cannot do it at all and 100 means I am sure I can do it. The Cronbach's success is correlated with achievement motivation but the dimension with
alpha demonstrates the reliability of the whole scale to be 0.96 and the which it correlates depends on the adopted perspective. Assuming a global
Guttman's split-half reliability coefficient is 0.87. approach to entrepreneurial success (i.e., as a combination of all four
perspectives), it is significantly correlated with Flexibility, Courage, and
3.2.4. The Self-Esteem Scale (SES) Dominance. However, these correlations (as illustrated above) change if
This is a 10-item tool developed by Rosenberg that was translated to success is ‘split’ into various perspectives. Nevertheless, it seems that
Polish by Dzwonkowska, Lachowicz-Tabaczek, and Łaguna (2007), Flexibility, Courage, and Dominance may turn out to be important from
which allows one to make a general self-appraisal. The respondent the perspective of entrepreneurial success since they were the only ones
expresses their view on each statement by choosing one out of four that correlated with the majority of the scores captured from different
response options ranging between I definitely agree and I definitely dis- perspectives and the total score as well. The Spearman's rho correlation
agree. The sum of the points in each test item is the total score ranging coefficients described above are provided in Table 1. Statistically sig-
between 10 and 40 points. A higher level of general self-appraisal is nificant results are highlighted.
indicated by a higher score. Cronbach's alpha demonstrated that the The final step was to compare the entrepreneurs with high and low
reliability of the scale ranges between 0.81 and 0.83. entrepreneurial success in terms of their scores in the questionnaires
employed in the study: AMI, SES, GSES, and EES. The criterion of the
3.2.5. The General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES) median served to divide the respondents into two groups of en-
This is a 10-item tool developed by Schwarzer, Jerusalem, and trepreneurs with either high or low entrepreneurial success. In other
Juczyński (2012) that measures the self-conviction about one's effec- words, the median value (Me = 85) was estimated for entrepreneurial
tiveness in tackling difficult situations and overcoming obstacles. Both success (i.e., the total score in the QES) and the outcome was used as a
healthy and diseased adults can be examined with this scale as part of separator. The entrepreneurs who scored higher than 85 joined the
individual or group studies. The respondent conveys their view on each group with high entrepreneurial success and those with a score lower
statement by selecting one out of four response options: No, Rather not, than 85 joined the group with low entrepreneurial success. Chart 1
Rather yes, or Yes. The total score is calculated by adding up all the presents mean scores of the AMI, SES, EES, and GSES. Clearly, the

436
M.W. Staniewski and K. Awruk Journal of Business Research 101 (2019) 433–440

Table 1
Spearman's rho correlations between the scores in the QES and the scores in the AMI.
Scale SSK SSD SOK SOD Total score
Flexibility 0.24* 0.21* 0.19* 0.10 0.19*
Courage 0.15 0.26* 0.23* 0.17 0.22*
Preference for difficult 0.20* 0.12 0.11 −0.01 0.09
tasks
Independence 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.06 0.13
Confidence in success 0.27* 0.14 0.14 0.02 0.13
Dominance 0.25* 0.17 0.26* 0.21* 0.26*
Eagerness to learn 0.02 − 0.03 − 0.03 −0.08 − 0.05
Goal setting 0.22* 0.07 0.17 0.06 0.14
Compensatory effort 0.06 −0.01 −0.08 0.20* −0.09
Status orientation 0.14 0.05 0.19* 0.12 0.16
Pride in productivity 0.15 0.06 0.09 −0.00 0.03
Engagement 0.08 0.03 0.10 0.12 0.12
Competitiveness 0.00 − 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.02
Flow 0.12 − 0.02 0.05 −0.11 −0.02
Internality 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.04 0.11
Persistence 0.20* 0.21* 0.12 −0.01 0.12
Self-control 0.16 0.17* 0.01 0.04 0.11

*SSK – subjective entrepreneurial success from a short-term perspective, *SSD – subjective en-
trepreneurial success from a long-term perspective, *SOK – objective entrepreneurial success from a
short-term perspective, and *SOD – objective entrepreneurial success from a long-term perspective;

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

low success high success

Chart 1. Mean scores of the AMI, SES, EES, and GSES obtained by the groups of entrepreneurs with low and high entrepreneurial success.

entrepreneurs with higher entrepreneurial success displayed greater the efficacy of collecting market information). In this group (of people
levels of flexibility, courage, preference for difficult tasks, in- with high entrepreneurial success), lower scores were obtained for ea-
dependence, faith in success, dominance, objective orientation, status gerness to learn, compensatory effort, and flow. Furthermore, the as-
orientation, pride in productivity, engagement, competitiveness, in- sessment of the significance of the differences – performed using the
ternality, persistence, self-control, self-appraisal, the efficacy of col- Mann–Whitney U test – demonstrated that despite this “trend” sug-
lecting market information, financial and legal efficacy, the efficacy of gesting generally higher scores in the AMI, SES, EES, and GSES in the
business activity, and the generalized sense of self-efficacy. Judging by group of entrepreneurs with higher entrepreneurial success, there were
the median values (as in Table 2), these scores may mostly be con- statistically significant differences only in terms of the following: flex-
sidered as high (except for pride in productivity, competitiveness, and ibility, dominance, self-appraisal, efficacy of collecting market

437
M.W. Staniewski and K. Awruk Journal of Business Research 101 (2019) 433–440

Table 2
Differences in the mean scores of the AMI, SES, EES, and GSES obtained by the groups of the respondents with low and high entrepreneurial success.
Low success High success
Me Z p
M SD M SD
Flexibility 49 47.94 7.80 50.84 7.27 −2.10 0.036
Courage 45 42.95 12.29 47.17 10.71 −1.89 0.059
Preference for difficult tasks 46 45.98 7.31 46.79 8.63 −0.78 0.438
independence 53 52.50 7.81 54.23 8.24 −1.08 0.280
Confidence in Success 52.5 51.15 8.18 53.34 8.25 −1.01 0.312
Dominance 51 50.26 9.15 54.17 9.04 −2.03 0.043
Eagerness to learn 46 46.30 6.28 46.24 7.09 −0.25 0.803
Goal setting 48 47.56 6.83 49.41 8.07 −1.42 0.154
Compensatory effort 48 48.17 8.65 47.16 8.50 −0.95 0.342
Status orientation 46 45.73 9.78 49.08 11.72 −1.84 0.065
Pride in productivity 57 55.94 6.46 56.63 8.08 −0.59 0.555
Engagement 47 45.20 9.75 48.14 9.96 −1.42 0.157
Competitiveness 41 40.16 10.09 40.57 9.63 −0.40 0.691
Flow 52 52 9.39 51.90 8.89 −0.25 0.800
Internality 50 47.89 9.08 50.19 8.56 −1.17 0.244
Persistence 48 48.57 8.97 51.18 10.29 −1.28 0.200
Self-control 48 46.60 7.80 49.02 8.29 −1.43 0.154
Self-control 33 32.37 3.44 34.08 4.24 −2.56 0.010
Effectiveness of collecting market
83.33 76.31 16.22 81.69 15.77 −2.22 0.027
information
Financial and legal efficacy 78 70.30 21.28 75.60 18.57 −1.30 0.193
Business/entrepreneurial efficacy 81.12 81.12 14.62 86.78 12.52 −2.38 0.017
Generalized sense of self-efficacy 32.05 32.05 3.42 33.82 3.86 −2.73 0.006

information and business activity, and the generalized sense of self-ef- related and relatively independent from one another. Furthermore, high
ficacy. In other words, the entrepreneurs with high entrepreneurial correlation coefficients support the internal coherence of the ques-
success generally obtained significantly higher mean scores for flex- tionnaire.
ibility, dominance, self-appraisal, the efficacy of collecting market in- The results of the pilot study also supported the satisfactory theo-
formation and business activity, and the generalized sense of self-effi- retical accuracy of the QES. The confirmation of the above was de-
cacy (Table 2). The statistically significant results are highlighted. monstrated by the results of the analyses of both the correlations be-
tween the QES and EES, SES, and GSES (which were presented in the
previous report) and the correlations between the QES and the di-
5. Conclusions
mensions of the AMI (flexibility, preference for difficult tasks, faith in
success, dominance, objective orientation, status orientation, persis-
As researchers' interest in entrepreneurial success increases, so does
tence, and self-control). In particular, three achievement motives –
the need to develop tools that will measure it accurately and reliably.
flexibility, courage, and dominance – turned out to be significant from
On the one hand, the absence of such a tool in Poland encouraged us to
the perspective of entrepreneurial success since they were correlated
design it and, on the other hand, it inhibited the development of this
with the majority of the subscales of the QES and the total score as well.
method (especially as far as validation studies are concerned).
This finding is similar to Johnson's (1990) evidence of a relationship
Therefore, the theoretical accuracy of this tool was determined with the
between achievement motivation and entrepreneurial activity, Collins'
use of questionnaires measuring constructs (i.e., business efficacy,
entrepreneurial performance (Collins et al., 2004) and McClelland's
achievement motivation, the generalized sense of one's own efficacy,
(1965) results that individuals with high achievement motivation are
and self-appraisal) that should correlate with entrepreneurial success,
more likely to engage in the instrumental activities that are necessary
yet they are not identical to it.
for entrepreneurial success than are individuals with low achievement
As proven in this article and the earlier report “Questionnaire of
motivation. Entrepreneurs who are high in achievement motivation are
Entrepreneurial Success – Report on the Initial Stage of Method
likely to overcome obstacles, utilize resources for help, compete, and
Construction” (Staniewski & Awruk, 2018), the Questionnaire of En-
improve their skills.
trepreneurial Success meets the basic psychometric parameters of ac-
Comparative and profile analyses of entrepreneurs with high and
curacy and reliability.
low entrepreneurial success showed that the respondents with high
The analysis of the discriminant power of the test items led to the
success are generally more flexible, dominating, appraise themselves
exclusion of some of the items and thus the 50-item version was shor-
better, have a greater sense of their own efficacy, and they generally
tened to a 38-item questionnaire. This version had satisfactory relia-
display higher business efficacy (e.g., in terms of obtaining informa-
bility indicators in the pilot study (i.e., the Cronbach's alpha was from
tion). This part of the results seems to be related to the theory of self-
0.77 for short-term subjective entrepreneurial success to 0.81 for long-
efficacy (Bandura, 1982) that states that entrepreneurs who achieve
term objective entrepreneurial success). The analysis of the inter-
success are more confident about their competency and, therefore, are
correlation matrices confirms that the constructs under examination are

438
M.W. Staniewski and K. Awruk Journal of Business Research 101 (2019) 433–440

more satisfied with their lives. Another researcher showed that en- Development of a measurement scale. International Journal of Entrepreneurial
trepreneurial success was related to higher life satisfaction (Przepiorka, Behaviour & Research, 20(5), 478–492.
Fodor, O. C., & Pintea, S. (2017). The “emotional side” of entrepreneurship: A meta-
2017). Undoubtedly, these results offer interesting insights about the analysis of the relation between positive and negative affect and entrepreneurial
qualities of an entrepreneur for effectively managing their business performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–16.
(and enjoying entrepreneurial success). On top of that, from the point of Fried, H. O., & Tauer, L. W. (2009). understanding the entrepreneur: An index of en-
trepreneurial success. new york: Cornell University.
view of designing a questionnaire, they show that the QES differentiates Fried, H. O., & Tauer, L. W. (2015). An entrepreneur performance index. Journal of
between the groups correctly. Productivity Analysis, 44, 69–77.
On the basis of the obtained initial results of the pilot study on the Gorgievski, M. J., Ascalon, M. E., & Stephan, U. (2011). Small business owners' success
criteria, a values approach to personal differences. Journal of Small Business
QES, it may be stated that the tool meets the basic psychometric Management, 49(2), 207–232.
parameters and hence may be applied in research on entrepreneurial Gupta, N., & Mirchandani, A. (2018). Investigating entrepreneurial success factors of
success, which is a very important theoretical contribution. It is ne- women-owned SMEs in UAE. Management Decision, 56(1), 219–232. https://doi.org/
10.1108/MD-04-2017-0411.
cessary to highlight that although the literature describes the categories
Hogarth, R. M., & Karelaia, N. (2008). Entrepreneurial success and failure: Confidence and
used to evaluate entrepreneurial success, such a constructed measure- fallible judgment. Report. Barcelona: ICREA and Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
ment tool of entrepreneurial success is very rare in the literature. This Johnson, B. R. (1990). Toward a multidimensional model of entrepreneurship: The case of
study allows us to better understand this complex phenomenon. It is achievement motivation and the entrepreneur. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
14(3), 39–54.
also important that the QES can be used in practice, such as by banks Joona, P. A. (2018). How does motherhood affect self-employment performance? Small
and other financial entities that grant loans for new start-ups and ex- Business Economics, 50(1), 29–54.
isting companies for their development. Applying the QES can result in Juczyński, Z. (2012). Narzędzia Pomiaru w Promocji i Psychologii Zdrowia [Diagnostic Tools
in Health Promotion and Psychology]. Warszawa: Pracownia Testów Psychologicznych
making better decisions on allocating money by investors, and so on. Polskiego Towarzystwa Psychologicznego.
These are very beneficial empirical implications. Nevertheless, further Klinkosz, W., & Sękowski, A. E. (2013). LMI. Inwentarz Motywacji Osiągnięć H. Schulera,
development of the tool is obligatory. First, the authors plan to add a G.C. Thorntona, A. Frintrupa & M. Prochaski [Achievement Motivation Inventory by H.
Schulera, G.C. Thornton, A. Frintrup & M. Prochaska]. Warszawa: Pracownia Testów
new perspective to the QES and consider the family influence on en- Psychologicznych Polskiego Towarzystwa Psychologicznego.
trepreneurial success, which seems to be a very important factor that is Łaguna, M. (2006). Skala Skuteczności Przedsiębiorczej SSP [Development and
underdeveloped and mostly ignored in existing measures that are ap- Psychometric Properties of Entrepreneurial Self-efficacy Scale]. Roczniki
Psychologiczne, IX(2), 103-123.
plied to assess entrepreneurial success. Lerner, M., Brush, C., & Hisrich, R. (1997). Israeli women entrepreneurs: An examination
of factors affecting performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(4), 315–339.
References Liechti, D., Loderer, C., & Peyer, U. (2009). Luck and entrepreneurial success. Paper pre-
sented at the 2009 Conference of the Academy of Entrepreneurial Finance, Chicago,
September 23-25.
Abu, F., Yunus, A. R., Majid, I. A., Jabar, J., Aris, A., Sakidin, H., & Ahmad, A. (2014). Lukes, M., & Stephan, U. (2012). Nonprofit leaders and for-profit entrepreneurs: Similar
Technology acceptance model (TAM): Empowering smart customer to participate in people with different motivation. Ceskoslovenska Psychologie, 56(1), 41–55.
electricity supply system. Journal of Technology Management and Technopreneurship, Mahadea, D. (2008). Achievement motivation and small business success in Transkei.
2(1), 85–94. Development Southern Africa, 11(1), 91–98.
Agarwal, R., & Dahm, M. J. (2015). Success factors in independent ethnic restaurants. McClelland, D. C. (1965). Toward a theory of motive acquisition. American Psychologist,
Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 18(1), 20–33. 20(5), 321–333.
Alstete, J. (2008). Aspects of entrepreneurial success. Journal of Small Business and McClelland, D. C. (1967). Achieving society. Vol. 92051. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Enterprise Development, 15(3), 584–594. McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L. (1976). The achievement
Bahari, N., Jabar, J., & Yunus, A. R. (2017). Malaysian women entrepreneurial char- motive. Oxford, England: Irvington.
acteristics, strategic orientation and firm performance: The moderator role of gov- Muis, I., Suleeman, J., & Riyanti, B.P.D. (2017). Why do women have less opportunity for
ernment support programs. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, entrepreneurial success compared to men? Advances in social science, education and
4(12), 257–262. humanities research (ASSEHR), vol. 149, 2nd International Conference on Education,
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, Science, and Technology (ICEST 2017).
37(2), 122–147. Murphy, G. B., Trailer, J. W., & Hill, R. C. (1996). Measuring performance in en-
Baum, J., Locke, E., & Smith, K. (2001). A multidimensional model of venture growth. The trepreneurship research. Journal of Business Research, 36(1), 15–23.
Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 292–303. http://www.jstor.org/stable/ Ojo, O. D., Petrescu, M., Petrescu, A. G., & Bilcan, F. R. (2017). Impact of innovation on
3069456. the entrepreneurial success: Evidence from Nigeria. African Journal of Business
Bullini Orlandi, L. (2017). Am I entrepreneur? Identity struggle in the contemporary Management, 11(12), 261–265.
women entrepreneurship discourse. Contemporary Economics, 11(4), 487–498. Orser, B., & Dyke, L. (2009). The influence of gender and occupational-role on en-
Burger, J. M. (2008). Personality (7th ed.). Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth. trepreneurs' and corporate managers' success criteria. Journal of Small Business and
Caliendo, M., & Kritikos, A. S. (2008). Is entrepreneurial success predictable? An ex-ante Entrepreneurship, 22(3), 327–353.
analysis of the character-based approach. Kyklos, 61(2), 189–214. Parsa, H. G., Self, J. T., Njite, D., & King, T. (2005). Why restaurants fail. Cornell Hotel and
Camillo, A. A., Connolly, D. J., & Kim, W. G. (2008). Success and failure in Northern Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 46(3), 304–322.
California: Critical success factors for independent restaurants. Cornell Hospitality Powell, G. N., & Eddleston, K. A. (2008). The paradox of the contented female business
Quarterly, 49(4), 364–380. owner. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(1), 24–36.
Carsrud, A. L., & Brannback, M. (2009). Understanding the entrepreneurial mind. New York, Przepiorka, A. M. (2017). Psychological determinants of entrepreneurial success and life-
NY: Springer. satisfaction. Current Psychology, 36(2), 304–315.
Chandler, G. N., & Jansen, E. (1992). The founder's self-assessed competence and venture Ramadani, V. (2015). The woman entrepreneur in Albania: An exploratory study on
performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 7(3), 223–236. motivation, problems and success factors. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies,
Cliff, J. E. (1998). Does one size fit all? Exploring the relationship between attitudes 17(2), 204–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/19448953.2014.997488.
towards growth, gender, and business size. Journal of Business Venturing, 13(6), Rauch, A., & Frese, M. (2000). Psychological approaches to entrepreneurial success: A
523–542. general model and an overview of findings. In C. L. Cooper, & I. T. Robertson (Eds.).
Collins, C. J., Hanges, P. J., & Locke, E. A. (2004). The relationship of achievement International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 101–141).
motivation to entrepreneurial behavior: A meta-analysis. Human Performance, 17(1), Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
95–117. Razmus, W., & Laguna, M. (2018). Dimensions of entrepreneurial success: A multilevel
Dej, D. (2010). Defining and measuring entrepreneurial success. In M. Lukes, & M. Laguna study on stakeholders of micro-enterprises. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1–11.
(Eds.). Entrepreneurship: A psychological approach (pp. 89–102). Praha: Oeconomica. Sarasvathy, S. D., Menon, A. R., & Kuechle, G. (2013). Failing firms and successful en-
Douglas, E. (2001). Entrepreneurship: The link between invention, innovation and suc- trepreneurs: Serial entrepreneurship as a temporal portfolio. Small Business
cess. In C. Barker (Ed.). Innovation and imagination at work (pp. 60–89). Roseville: Economics, 40(2), 417–434.
McGraw-Hill. Shane, S., Locke, E. A., & Collins, C. J. (2003). Entrepreneurial motivation. Human
Dzwonkowska, I., Lachowicz-Tabaczek, K., & Łaguna, M. (2007). Skala samooceny SES Resource Management Review, 13(2), 257–279.
Morrisa Rosenberga–polska adaptacja metody (The Self-Esteem Scale (SES) by Morris Singh, S. (1978). Achievement motivation and entrepreneurial success: A follow-up study.
Rosenberg - Polish translated method). Psychologia Społeczna, 2(2), 164–176. Journal of Research in Personality, 12(4), 500–503.
Edelman, L. F., Brush, C. G., Manolova, T. S., & Greene, P. G. (2010). Start-up motivations Staniewski, M. (2009). Youth attitude to entrepreneurship and hope for success. Case of polish
and growth intentions of minority nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business students. Paper presented at SAIMS 2009 Conference Business Management discourse in
Management, 48(2), 174–196. the new millennium: Challenges and opportunities. (Port Elizabeth, South Africa,
Fairlie, R. W., & Robb, A. M. (2008). Race and Entrepreneurial Success. Cambridge: The September 13-16).
MIT Press. Staniewski, M., & Awruk, K. (2015). Motivating factors and barriers in the commence-
Fisher, R., Maritz, A., & Lobo, A. (2014). Evaluating entrepreneurs' perception of success. ment of one's own business for potential entrepreneurs. Economic Research –

439
M.W. Staniewski and K. Awruk Journal of Business Research 101 (2019) 433–440

Ekonomska Istrazivanja, 28(1), 583–592. integrative multi-factorial measure of entrepreneurial success. International Small
Staniewski, M., & Awruk, K. (2018). Questionnaire of entrepreneurial success—Report on Business Journal, 34(8), 1098–1121.
the initial stage of method construction. Journal of Business Research, 88, 437–442. Walker, E., & Brown, A. (2004). What success factors are important to small business
Steffens, P., Davidsson, P., & Fitzsimmons, J. (Eds.). (2012). Performance configurations owners? International Small Business Journal, 22(6), 577–594.
over time: Implications for growth-and profit-oriented strategies, new perspectives on firm Yusof, S. W., Jabar, J., Murad, M. A., & Ortega, R. T. (2017). Exploring the cultural
growth. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. determinants of entrepreneurial success: The case of Malaysia. International Journal of
Stewart, W. H., Jr., & Roth, P. L. (2001). Risk propensity differences between en- Advanced and Applied Sciences, 4(12), 287–297.
trepreneurs and managers: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, Zhou, M., Zhou, Y., Zhang, J., Obschonka, M., & Silbereisen, R. K. (2017). Person–city
86(1), 145–153. personality fit and entrepreneurial success: An explorative study in China.
Sullivan, D. M., & Meek, W. R. (2012). Gender and entrepreneurship: A review and International Journal of Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12451 First
process model. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27(5), 428–458. published: 13 August 2017.
Wach, D., Stephan, U., & Gorgievski, M. (2016). More than money: Developing an

440