May 27, 2008

Characteristics of Small Business Definition

A literature review of 23 papers, which have been published from 1958 to 2002, revealed an inconsistency regarding both characterization and definition of small business. The current article objective is to suggest some guidelines that can help reduce the level of ambiguity. The method to reach that objective is through the analysis of five significant parameters that have been used by different scholars to define small business. Each of these parameters is being characterized and analyze in order to clarify the existing status and for suggesting the less ambiguous alternative for using that parameter.

First, the business must be independent: For that matter, a subsidiary or a branch can’t be considering as independent business.

Second, the business is not dominant in the industry it’s operating in: Part of ‘Monopolistic Competition’ definition can be used to characterize the parameter - There are many sellers and they believe that their actions will not materially affect their competitors.

Third, firm size (number of employees): This parameter is obviously the most popular among scholars for defining small business; nonetheless its use varies dramatically. If you’re in U.S. then an employer of up to 500 employees will still be consider as small business, contrary to U.S. in Europe most countries use the limit of 50 employees to define business as small. Taking into account that across the world ninety percent of the operating businesses are employing less then 20 employees, it seems that 50 employees is a more suitable limit. Moreover, business with more than 50 employees is employing operational and managerial techniques, which become more and more similar to those of large businesses. Characterize the upper limit brings us half way; in order for us to go all the way, lower limit should be characterize as well. A rule of thumb in that regard is that business with less then five-to-ten employees don’t even have the minimum operational and managerial structure, which can be treated as small business, any business with less then five employees is inadequate for any analysis, and should be named micro-business.

Fourth, firm age: The use of firm age by scholars meant to characterize the minimal period of time needed for a business in order to form some operational and managerial backbone, otherwise, there was a risk that data collected for statistical analysis wont be suitable. Biggadike (1979), supported by Miller and Camp (1985), conclude that a new venture needs in average eight years for achieving profitability. The barrier of eight years should be analyzed depending on several factors, such as the industry that the firm operates in or the initial capital raise for starting the new venture. Moreover, Biggadike based his definition on the basis of the period needed to generate profitability, which is only one among numerous measures of performance. Taking all into account, a conservative estimation will be that business can be still considering as new if the period from establishment is two-to-five years.

Fifth, annual revenue: What can be considering as acceptable annual revenue for small business? In order to be able to characterize this parameter, a preliminary step of defining the industry that the business relates to must be taken. There is a substantial difference regarding the revenue in different industries. For example - Annual sales of five million dollars generate by a car dealer must be treated entirely different then when this same revenue produces by any type of consulting firm. The source of revenue is of great importance; revenue from selling goods can’t be treated as revenue from selling knowledge or labor. Subject to that remark, and for the vast majority of small businesses that operates in either manufacturing or trade (retail, wholesale) industries, annual revenue of ten million dollars can be used as proximity for characterize the upper limit. This annual revenue correlate with the upper limit of 50 employees used as characteristic for firm size.

May 25, 2008

The Ambiguity of Small Business Definition

When different people are using the phrase ‘small business’, do they refer to a common set of definitions? Like, how many employees are listed in the payroll? Or, the number of years it’s operative? A literature review of 23 papers, which have been published from 1958 to 2002, tries to shed light on this issue. The review revealed an inconsistency regarding both characterization and definition of small business. The variety of definition used in these papers unable to set an agreeable format for small business definition. Mayer and Goldstein (1961) define small business as an employer of less then 200 employees. Potts (1977) set the barrier on 20 employees in addition to a minimum eight years that the business is operative. Robinson (1982) define firm as small if the number of employees is less then 50, the annual sales is under three million dollars and it’s operate as sole ownership. Covin and Slevin (1989) define small business according to number of employees - more then five or less then 500, as well as a minimum of five years that the business is operative. Rue and Ibrahim (1998) define small firm as an employer of more then 15 employees. Perry (2001) set an upper limit of 500 employees as a sole identifier for business to be regard as small. The review clarify that the ambiguity is stable over time. The lack of uniform definition in the sixtieth continued throughout the decades into the millennium. The industries targeted by the different scholars do have one common base; the focus was on industries with low to average economic growth such as manufacturing, trade (retail, wholesale) and service.

Scholars have addressed the problematicalness regarding the inconsistency of small business definition for quite time, Golde (1964) which examine small manufacturing employers with less then 500 employees, argue that it’s an arbitrarily definition which can adequately feet non manufacturing firms. Welsh and White (1981) claims that small business tend to group in certain industries, such as – wholesalers, retailers, service and manufacturing. Peterson et al., (1986) note that the most common definition is the one that used by the Small Business Administration (SBA), in part, that definition state that small business can be define as one if both its ownership and operation conducted independently, and it’s not dominant at the industry which is operate in. D'amboise and Muldowney (1988) write about the complexity of small business definition, which can be a result of the variety and different types of firms this phrase try to encompass. Pickle and Abrahamson (1990) address the question, what is a small business? There answer is that some will regard small business as such if it’s employ certain number of employees, others will claim that small business is one that limits his operation to local market, and part will classify business as small according to it’s nature (e.g., local pharmacy, clothing store, jewelry store).

May 6, 2008

Defining Firm Level Entrepreneurship

According to Zhara et al., (1999) different scholars use different expressions to describe entrepreneurship (e.g., Entrepreneurship, Corporate Entrepreneurship, Intrapreneurship, Entrepreneurship Posture, Entrepreneurial Orientation), but contrary to the variety of expressions used to describe entrepreneurship, there is consistency regarding entrepreneurship’s definition and measurement.
Generally speaking, entrepreneurship based research usually focus on either Traits or Behavior. Since the nineties, behavior underlie the vast majority of entrepreneurship’s research, the main reason for this is a limited success of scholars to reinforce the existence of common traits that characterize entrepreneurs (Smart and Conant, 1994). Gartner (1988) argues that the focus should be on “what the entrepreneur does” and not “who is the entrepreneur”. Behavior based research focus on the entrepreneurship process through the entrepreneur activities, that instead of referring to personal specific traits (Smart and Conant, 1994). Behavior based entrepreneurship’s research is usually conducted at entrepreneur level; nonetheless, scholars claim that entrepreneurship is implemented at the firm level as well (Carland et. al., 1984; Naman and Slevin, 1993; Lumpkin and Dess, 1996; Wiklund, 1999).

This article tries to establish a common base for defining firm level entrepreneurship. Naman and Slevin (1993) states that organization can be characterized and measured based on the level of entrepreneurship demonstrate by the firm’s management. According to Covin and Slevin (1986), top managers at entrepreneurship’s firm possess an entrepreneurship style of management, which affect the firm’s strategic decisions and management philosophy.
In order to establish definition for the firm level entrepreneurship, it is necessary to present the characteristics of management behavior used by scholars for that matter. Schumpeter (1934) states that innovativeness is the only entrepreneurship behavior that separates between entrepreneurship’s activities to non-entrepreneurship’s activities. Innovation relates to the pursuit after creative solutions through the development and improvement of services and products as well as administrative and technological techniques (Davis et al., 1991). Innovation reflects the firm’s tendency to support new ideas and procedures, which can end as new products or services Lumpkin and Dess (1996).
In his book “Essai sur la Nature Commerce en General”, Richard Cantillon (1755) argues that the essence of entrepreneurship is a risk-taking behavior. According to Lumpkin and Dess (1996), risk-taking can range from relatively “safe” risk as deposit money to the bank to quite risky actions like investing in untested technologies or launching new product to the market. In their research, Miller and Friesen (1982) define an entrepreneurial model of innovativeness, this model regards firm that innovate audacity and regularly while taking substantial risks in their strategy.
Third dimension, which can be added to innovation and risk-taking, is Proactive. According to Davis et al., (1991) proactive associates with an aggressive posture, relatively to competitors, while trying to achieve firm’s objectives by all rational needed means. Lumpkin and Dess (2001) mention that proactive relate to the way the firm associates to business opportunities through acquisition of initiatives in the market it’s operate in.
Although other dimensions are used to define firm level entrepreneurship, the vast majority of scholars use these three dimensions - Innovation, Risk-taking and Proactive (e.g., Miller and Friesen, 1978; Covin and Slevin, 1986, 1989; Naman and Slevin, 1993; Knight, 1993; Wiklund, 1999).