Highlights
- Hybrid entrepreneurs are individuals who start a business while retaining a wage job.
- They are younger, have higher education and less start-up experience than full-time entrepreneurs.
- Hybrid entrepreneurship is a low-risk way to gain experience as an entrepreneur and can be a good strategy for testing business concepts in the market.
- Policy makers should appreciate that hybrid entrepreneurship is a source of employment and activity in the economy.
1Hybrid entrepreneurs are individuals who start a business while retaining a wage job [1]. The concept of hybrid entrepreneurship is different from part-time entrepreneurship since it excludes entrepreneurs who are unemployed or unemployable because they are too young, too old, or not able to work (e.g. due to physical or mental disabilities), and part-time workers, i.e. individuals who work less than 30 hours per week in their job [2].
2Previous research on hybrid entrepreneurship has focused on issues that can explain the choice between direct entry into self-employment and hybrid entrepreneurship, also referred to as staged entry into self-employment. Scholars have investigated why many entrepreneurs choose hybrid entry, and also argued that hybrid entrepreneurs who later become self-employed have certain advantages over entrepreneurs who enter into self-employment directly. These advantages can explain the finding that entrepreneurs who use a staged entry into self-employment survive longer as self-employed than entrepreneurs who enter into self-employment directly [3].
3Previous research on the topic generally presumes that hybrid entrepreneurship is a temporary phenomenon, and that the objective of the business founder is entry into self-employment. However, many business founders have no desire or intention to become self-employed [4]. Indeed it is possible for hybrid entrepreneurs to remain hybrids. This option may be particularly attractive in countries where there is a low preference for self-employment in the population (e.g. in Scandinavia, Finland and the Netherlands), and for people who hold jobs with high autonomy and relatively high salary and are satisfied with being employees (e.g. university professors and politicians). Reynolds (2017) also found that it is possible and relatively common to start profitable businesses in the USA without full commitment from its founders [5].
4The purpose of the present research is to compare businesses started by hybrid entrepreneurs with businesses started by individuals who are full-time self-employed. We examine differences in individual and business characteristics at start-up, the business gestation process, firm performance and business survival. We start with a representative sample of businesses founded in Norway in 2002 and follow their achievements from 2003 to 2015. To our knowledge, no previous research has compared the performance of businesses started by hybrids with businesses started by full-time self-employed over such a long period of time.
A new field of study
5Hybrid entrepreneurship is a new field of study, and through a systematic literature search we were only able to identify eleven publications on the topic. Four of the studies were conducted in the USA, three in Sweden, two in the UK, one in Germany, one in Norway and one in Mexico. Four of the publications do not satisfy the criteria typically mentioned for rigorous scientific research [6], and only two are published in high quality academic journals [7].
6Using the individual as the unit of analysis, many of the publications examine issues that may explain the choice between hybrid entry and full time entry into entrepreneurship [8]. To explain this choice, researchers have often focused on risk aversion and perception of risk, human capital (education and experience), and switching costs associated with the change from employment to self-employment.
7Folta et al. (2010), Petrova (2005/2012; 2011), Raffiee and Feng (2014), and Solesvik (2017) find that risk-averse individuals tend to choose hybrid entry. Perceptions of risk is probably related to the perceived uncertainty in the external business environment, and many of the previous studies on hybrid entrepreneurship mention perceived environmental uncertainty as a factor that affect individuals’ choice of hybrid entry into entrepreneurship [8]. Individuals may choose hybrid entry in order to test their ideas, learn about the entrepreneurial process, test their abilities as entrepreneurs, and reduce opportunity costs from losing the income from their current employment position. Hybrid entry into entrepreneurship allows them to protect their resources from risks [9].
8Individuals who choose hybrid entry into entrepreneurship tend to have high general human capital, but low human capital specific to entrepreneurship [10]. Folta et al. (2010) found that individuals with the highest switching cost choose wage work, while those with the lowest choose self-employment. Only those with intermediate switching costs choose hybrid entrepreneurship. Folta et al. (2010) argue that hybrid entry allows them to reduce career-switching costs by staying flexible and keeping links with the employer.
9Raffiee and Feng (2014) regard hybrid entrepreneurship as a real option to become self-employed. If the option proves to be attractive enough, the entrepreneur is expected to strike on the option and become self-employed. Individuals will abandon their wage job only if their company provides a secure and satisfactory income. During the time as hybrids individuals receive signals concerning their firms’ performance. Positive signals tend to inspire individuals to continue their entrepreneurial career, quit their job and become self-employed. Obtained business ownership experience and improved perceived skills in business management during hybrid entrepreneurship increases the odds of becoming self-employed [11].
10The learning-by-doing through the choice of particular actions supplies hybrids with new information and knowledge about entrepreneurship. It provides an access to important tangible and intangible resources. This learning process reduces perceived uncertainty and enhances individual and business performance [12].
Research questions
11In this study we focus on four research questions. The research questions concern the degree to which hybrid and self-employed entrepreneurs are different with regard to (1) individual and business characteristics business at the time of the start-up in 2002, (2) reaching central milestones in the business gestation process, (3) accumulated firm achievements, and (4) the exit rate of firms.
12RQ1: What are the differences between hybrids and self-employed with regard to their personal and business characteristics?
13Previous research has shown that hybrids tend to be younger, have higher education, but have less entrepreneurial experience than self-employed business founders. In addition to such demographic characteristics, we include a measure of experience from similar work, since industry experience and familiarity with work tasks is an important aspect of human capital related to entrepreneurship.
14We investigate several business characteristics, including the propensity to start businesses in teams, the choice of legal form, the choice between start-up and acquisitive entry, venture novelty, capital at the time of the start-up, and the founders’ growth expectations for the business.
15RQ2: Are there any differences in the business gestation process between firms started by hybrids and self-employed?
16By definition, hybrids have salaried jobs. Having a job means that they have less time to their disposal for their businesses. The job is likely to provide them with a fixed monthly salary. Consequently, progress in the business gestation process is not especially important for hybrids. Therefore, we expect them to be less likely to reach central milestones in the business gestation process such as first sales, first transaction, first profit, and particularly first employment. Entrepreneurs who plan to become self-employed in their new business have much stronger intentions to hire someone else in their business than entrepreneurs who plan to remain part-time entrepreneurs [13].
17RQ3. Do firms started by self-employed entrepreneurs achieve higher performance than firms started by hybrids?
18The choice of hybrid entry is likely to be associated with risk aversion and concerns about uncertainty. People who combine a salaried job with business ownership take lower risks than people who are self-employed. Since hybrids take lower risks than full-time entrepreneurs, they are likely to start smaller, less profitable businesses than their full-time counterparts.
19RQ4. Are there differences in survival rates between firms started by self-employed entrepreneurs and firms started by hybrids?
20We argued above that hybrids compared to full-time entrepreneurs are less likely to reach central milestones in the business gestation process, take less risk, and start smaller businesses. Hybrids do not depend on the income from their businesses. They can afford to keep very small businesses with marginal income alive. Consequently, we expect businesses started by hybrids to survive longer than business started by full-time entrepreneurs.
Methodology
21In Norway, all new businesses are required to register before they can start trading or hire personnel legally. This makes it possible to identify new businesses at a very early stage. The data collection for this study started in May 2002. We acquired contact information to all new businesses registered during four sequential weeks in May/June 2002 and mailed out 3,121 questionnaires to the lead entrepreneur in all new business registered. After one reminder, we received 1048 questionnaires, a response rate of 35.0%. We received most of the completed questionnaires during only a few weeks after businesses registration. In November 2016, we acquired annual tax accounts from all the business from 2003 to 2015 from the Norwegian tax authorities. This data contained information about annual sales, labor costs and profits for all businesses that had transactions during each year from 2003 to 2015 (we did not include data from 2002 in the analysis since accounting figures from non-incorporated businesses that year were unavailable).
22We removed 28 respondents who stated that they were not responsible for the start-up in 2002. Our definitions of full-time and hybrid entrepreneurs are based on the following question: “What is your employment status today?” Respondents answered along a 6-point scale [14]. Table 1 shows the distribution of answers.
Employment status at the time of business registration
| Employment status | N | Percent | Treatment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Self-employed only | 345 | 33.8% | Full-time entrepreneur |
| Mainly self-employed | 125 | 12.2% | |
| Both self-employed and employed | 165 | 16.2% | Hybrid entrepreneur |
| Mainly employed | 263 | 25.8% | |
| Employed only | 42 | 4.1% | |
| Other | 80 | 7.8% | Excluded |
Employment status at the time of business registration
23We define full time entrepreneurs as individuals who state that their employment status is only or mainly self-employment. Further, we define hybrid entrepreneurs as those who answered that they are only or mainly employed or both self-employed and employed. We removed 80 entrepreneurs who stated to have other employment statuses than those mentioned above [15], leaving us with 470 full-time entrepreneurs and 470 hybrids. Table 2 shows the distribution of the entrepreneurs by industry.
24Table 2 shows that hybrids are over-represented in agriculture/fishing and leisure and that a higher proportion of entrepreneurs enter into construction and transport as self-employed. Readers should be aware that we do not control for these industry differences in our analysis. Industry differences and other differences between hybrids and self-employed may explain some of the findings reported here.
Hybrids and self-employed entrepreneurs by industry
| Industry | Self-employed | Hybrids | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | Percent | N | Percent | |
| Agriculture and fishing | 24 | 5.1% | 43 | 9.1% |
| Manufacturing | 24 | 5.1% | 19 | 4.0% |
| Construction | 64 | 13.6% | 35 | 7.4% |
| Trade | 88 | 18.7% | 82 | 17.4% |
| Transport | 43 | 9.1% | 18 | 3.8% |
| Finance | 21 | 4.4% | 26 | 5.5% |
| Information Technology | 24 | 5.1% | 36 | 7.7% |
| Business services | 109 | 23.2% | 109 | 23.2% |
| Personal services | 52 | 11.1% | 61 | 13.0% |
| Leisure | 22 | 4.7% | 41 | 8.7% |
| Total | 470 | 470 | ||
Hybrids and self-employed entrepreneurs by industry
Measures
25The personal characteristics include the entrepreneur’s age in 2002 (measured in years), gender (1 = male), education (1 = at least some university education), business start-up experience, and experience from similar work. We measured experience from similar work using a 7-point scale (from 1 = very dissimilar to 7 = very similar) of business similarity developed by Chandler and Jansen (1992) [16]. Respondents were asked: “What similarities are there between the new business and your previous job/business with regard to (1) products or services, (2) customers, (3) suppliers, (4) competitors, (5) technology. We averaged the item scores to obtain an index of business similarity (Cronbach’s alpha = .94).
26The variables that concern the business include a measure of team start-up (if the business is started by a sole entrepreneur or a team), legal form (corporation versus sole proprietorship and partnership), and whether the business was started from scratch (de novo entry) or an acquisition. We also measure perceived venture novelty, start-up capital and growth expectations. We measured perceived venture novelty in the questionnaire using three statements adapted from Reynolds et al. (2002) [17]. Respondents were asked along a seven-point scale (from 1 = completely disagree, through 4 = neither agree nor disagree, to 7 = completely agree): (1) “Customers will experience our product or service as new and unknown.” (2) “There are few or no competing businesses that offer a similar product or service.” (3) The technology of the production process is not readily available.” Our measure of novelty is the average score on these three items (Cronbach’s alpha = .71).
27To obtain a measure of the total capital invested in the business, we summed and logarithmically transformed the amount of loan and equity in the firm at the time of start-up as reported by the informants in the questionnaire. To avoid the logarithm of zero, we added the base of the natural logarithm (2.718) to all initial values.
28The measure of growth expectations is an average of four items measured along a 7-point scale (from 1 =”very unlikely” to 7 =”very likely”). The question was formulated as follows: “One year from now, how likely: (1) Is the business to have employed someone other than you? (2) Is the business to have at least ten full-time employees? (3) Is the business to have annual sales revenues of at least NOK 500,000? (4) Is the business to have annual sales revenues of at least NOK 5,000,000?” (1 NOK = approx. 0.11 Euro). The Cronbach’s alpha of this index was .75.
29In the exploration of differences between full-time and hybrid entrepreneurs and their businesses, we require the respondents to have submitted a complete data set. This procedure reduced the sample for this part of the analysis to 367 full-time entrepreneurs and 381 hybrids. When investigation differences in outcomes from businesses started by full-time entrepreneurs and hybrids, we use secondary data from the tax authorities, which include 470 full-time entrepreneurs and 470 hybrids.
30The outcome variables include business survival and accumulated figures for sales revenues, labor costs, and earnings. The year of business death is the year the business is removed from the business register. We calculated the outcome variables based on the annual accounting information from 2003 to 2015, which we had acquired from the tax authorities. The figures we received from the tax authorities contained the annual total sales revenues in each business (excluding VAT), total labor costs (salaries and the firm’s contribution to pension and social security) and earnings (or losses) before interests and taxes (EBIT). We assigned a value of zero to businesses with missing values because they had no sales, labor costs or profits (losses) in a specific year. This procedure allowed us to include dormant businesses and dead businesses in the analysis. We adjusted all figures for inflation, and measure sales, labor costs and earnings using 2015 Norwegian Kroner.
Results
Characteristics at start-up
31We first examine the differences between full-time and hybrid entrepreneurs with regard to personal characteristics and their businesses at start-up based on responses to the questionnaire. Table 3 shows the results from the comparison of full-time and hybrid entrepreneurs and their businesses.
Differences between full-time and hybrid entrepreneurs
| Full-time entrepreneurs (n = 367) | Hybrid entrepreneurs (n = 381) | Test of statistical significance [18] | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entrepreneur | |||
| Age | 39.2 years | 37.7 years | 1.98* |
| Male | 79% | 78% | 0.18 |
| High education | 49% | 60% | -2.83** |
| Start-up experience | 33% | 18% | 4.65*** |
| Business similarity | 4.8 | 4.1 | 5.19*** |
| Business | |||
| Team start-up | 29% | 23% | 2.06* |
| Corporation | 33% | 15% | 5.93*** |
| De novo entry | 80% | 90% | -3.87*** |
| Venture novelty | 2.7 | 3.0 | -2.71** |
| Start-up capital | 10.3 | 8.0 | 6.82*** |
| Growth expectations | 3.3 | 2.3 | 9.58*** |
Differences between full-time and hybrid entrepreneurs
32Hybrids, as compared to full-time entrepreneurs, are younger, have higher education, but lower entrepreneurial human capital in terms of start-up experience and experience from similar work. Women and men entrepreneurs have the same propensity to choose hybrid entry. Business started by hybrids are less likely to be team start-ups, and less likely to be corporations. A possible explanation is that hybrids have limited time at their disposal, and therefore start smaller ventures, less likely to be corporations and businesses with partners.
33Hybrids are more likely to start businesses from scratch rather than acquire businesses. Their businesses also score higher on venture novelty than businesses started by full-time entrepreneurs. Businesses started by hybrids have significantly lower start-up capital and have lower growth expectations than businesses started by full-time entrepreneurs.
34In summary, hybrid entrepreneurs as opposed to full-time entrepreneurs are:
35■ Younger
36■ Have higher education
37■ Lower entrepreneurial human capital in terms of start-up experience and experience from similar work
38■ Firm started by hybrids compared to firm started by full-time entrepreneurs are:
39■ Less likely to be team start-ups
40■ Less likely to be corporations
41■ More likely to be started from scratch (as opposed to acquired businesses)
42■ Score higher on venture novelty
43■ Lower start-up capital (equity + loans)
44■ Lower growth expectations.
Business gestation
45Businesses started by hybrids are less likely to reach central milestones in the business gestation process. They are less likely to achieve the first business transaction (Figure 1), to obtain their first sale (Figure 2), to obtain their first profit (Figure 3), and to hire their first employee (Figure 4). Since reaching the first business transaction can be used as an indicator of business birth [19], one may argue that many firms registered by hybrids are never born. The largest difference in gestation activities among hybrids and full-time business founders is first employment. As Figure 4 shows, only about 20% of hybrids ever hire employees, compared to 35% of business started by full-time entrepreneurs.
Percentage of ventures reporting first transaction
Percentage of ventures reporting first transaction
Percentage of ventures reporting first sale
Percentage of ventures reporting first sale
Percentage of ventures reporting first profits
Percentage of ventures reporting first profits
Percentage of ventures reporting first employment
Percentage of ventures reporting first employment
Firm performance
46In Table 4, we show the average accumulated achievements from 2003 to 2015 for all business started by hybrids and full-time entrepreneurs. Firms started by full-time self-employed compared to firms started by hybrids have about 3.0 times greater accumulated sales, 3.4 times greater accumulated labor costs, and 2.1 times the accumulated earnings. These results illustrates that hybrids do not take much risk. The finding that firms started by full-time entrepreneurs only generate slightly more than twice the earnings generated by hybrids’ firms reflects that dead firms started by full-time entrepreneurs have accumulated larger deficits than firms started by hybrids. Our data show that 82 (17.4%) of the hybrids have deficits, with an average loss of NOK 297,477 [21]. In contrast, 65 (13.8%) of the self-employed have deficits, with an average loss of NOK 699,965. This difference is statistically significant at p ≤. 05.
Average accumulated achievements [20] of businesses started by full-time and hybrid entrepreneurs
Average accumulated achievements [20] of businesses started by full-time and hybrid entrepreneurs
Firm exits
47As Figure 5 shows, businesses started by hybrids have lower exit rates than business started by full-time entrepreneurs.
Percentage of dead firms
Percentage of dead firms
48Since 2002, around 45% of businesses started by full-time entrepreneurs and 35% of firms started by hybrids have closed. These exit rates are somewhat lower than those commonly reported and reflect our use of membership in the governments’ business register as indicator of business survival. In many studies, firms are counted as dead if they fail to have employees or do not report any business transactions.
49In summary, we find the following differences between hybrid entrepreneurs and full-time entrepreneurs with regard to business gestation, performance, and survival:
50■ Hybrids are less likely to reach central milestones in business gestation process
51■ Hybrids report significant lower accumulated sales, accumulated labor costs and accumulated earnings than full-time entrepreneurs
52■ Firms started by hybrids have higher chances of survival than firms started by full-time entrepreneurs
53■ Closed firms started by hybrids have accumulated less deficits than firms started by full-time entrepreneurs.
Higher novelty, lower growth expectations
54This study compared hybrid and self-employed business founders and their firms. We investigated individual and business characteristics of these two types of entrepreneurs, and looked for differences in the business gestation process, accumulated business performance in terms of sales income, labor costs, earnings and business survival.
55Our findings echo those previously reported by other scholars with regard to the typical characteristics of hybrid business founders. Compared to full-time entrepreneurs, hybrids are younger, have more education, but less human capital specific to entrepreneurship. The rest of our findings are more novel. Hybrid entrepreneurs are less likely to start businesses in teams, they are less likely to choose corporation as the legal form, and they are less likely to acquire businesses and more likely to start their business from scratch. Hybrids tend to start smaller businesses than their full-time counterparts. They have less start-up capital and lower growth expectations for their businesses. However, the businesses started by hybrids have significantly higher novelty than other businesses. Hybrids are less likely to reach central milestones in the business gestation process. In particular, businesses started by hybrids are less likely to hire employees. Businesses started by hybrids are small, and have lower sales, labor costs and earnings than businesses started by full-time entrepreneurs. On the more positive side, hybrid businesses survive longer and closed firms started by hybrids when are less likely to have accumulated large deficits. However, it should be noted that many of the surviving firms are dormant or semi-dormant firms with no or few annual transactions.
56As all studies, the present research has limitations. The most important limitations are probably that we did not monitor possible changes in the explanatory variables over time and did not include any control variables. We only have the employment status of the founder at the time of the start-up. Some business may have been sold or changed ownership, but we believe that such changes are rare. Our analysis is quite simple, and we did not include any control variables. For example, it is possible that industry differences may influence the results reported here.
57Our might not be generalizable to all other countries. In Norway, individuals appear to engage in hybrid entrepreneurship in order to test out business ideas and to gain experience in entrepreneurship. In countries where salaries are low, employees are more likely to engage in hybrid entrepreneurship in order to increase their earnings.
58Until now, researchers have usually not distinguished between experience from hybrid entrepreneurship and self-employment. Researchers often measure entrepreneurial experience by a single item concerning experience from self-employment, business ownership, or business start-ups. In order to test the effect of experience from hybrid entrepreneurship on future entrepreneurial efforts, researchers are well advised to distinguish between experience from self-employment and experience from hybrid entrepreneurship. Future research on the outcomes from very small and very new businesses should also distinguish between hybrids and full-time entrepreneurs, as the findings reported here clearly indicate that employment status of the founder has an impact on business performance and survival.
59This study has implications for entrepreneurs and policy-makers. For the prospective entrepreneur a viable strategy may very well be to engage in hybrid entrepreneurship. All business owners have certain advantages, such as access to resources, information, opportunities, supplies, and possible tax benefits. Hybrid entrepreneurs can obtain such benefits with no ceiling on potential gains, but limited downside loss [22]. Hybrid entry should be especially relevant for individuals who are unwilling to take the risk of becoming full-time entrepreneurs and quitting their jobs. Hybrid entrepreneurship is a low-risk way to gain experience as an entrepreneur and learn more about business management. It can be a good strategy for testing business concepts in the market. Feedback from the market should enable the entrepreneur to take an informed decision whether or not to strike on the option, growing the business and becoming a full-time entrepreneur. Further, the results of the study indicated that hybrid entrepreneurs are less likely than full-time entrepreneurs to be involved in team start-ups. Since entrepreneurial human capital in terms of industry experience and business start-up experience is an important determinant of firm growth, hybrid entrepreneurs with growth ambitions should consider seeking to form start-up teams with experienced full-time entrepreneurs.
60Policy makers should appreciate that hybrid entrepreneurship is a source of employment and activity in the economy. Reaching the first employment milestone appears to be a particularly challenging task for hybrid entrepreneurs. Therefore, it is possible that the contribution of hybrid entrepreneurs to the economy can be increased by reducing the bureaucracy associated with hiring employees in new and small firms. Even if the results from this study showed that full-time entrepreneurs compared with hybrid entrepreneurs report significant higher firm performance, the impact on economies from hybrid entrepreneurship should not be neglected since hybrid entrepreneurs are so numerous. It is also interesting to note that our study showed that firm survival is more likely for firms started by hybrid entrepreneurs, and that hybrids are likely to avoid high economic and personal costs associated with firm exits.
We are deeply grateful to the Norwegian Tax Authority (“Skatteetaten”) for helping us in the early stages of this project and for providing the data that made this research possible.
Notes
-
[1]
Folta (Timothy B.), Delmar (Frédéric) and Wennberg (Karl), “Hybrid entrepreneurship”, Management Science, Vol. 56, 2010, p. 253-269.
-
[2]
Schulz (Matthias), Urbig (Diemo) and Procher (Vivien), “Hybrid entrepreneurship and public policy: The case of firm entry deregulation”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 31, 2016, p. 272-286.
-
[3]
Raffiee (Joseph) and Feng (Jie), “Should I quit my day job?: A hybrid path to entrepreneurship”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 57, 2014, p. 936-963.
-
[4]
Kolvereid (Lars), “Preference for self-employment: Prediction of new business start-up intentions and efforts”, The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Vol. 17 (2), 2016, p. 100-109.
-
[5]
Reynolds (Paul Davidson), “When is a Firm Born? Alternative Criteria and Consequences”, Business Economics, Vol. 11, 2017, p. 41-56.
-
[6]
Bryman (Alan) and Bell (Emma), “Business Research Methods”, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003; Hammersley (Martyn), “What’s wrong with ethnography”, London, Routledge, 1992.
-
[7]
Folta (Timothy B.), Delmar (Frédéric) and Wennberg (Karl), op.cit; Raffiee (Joseph) and Feng (Jie), op.cit.
-
[8]
Burke (Andrew E.), Fitzroy (Felix R.) and Nolan (Michael A.), “What makes a die-hard entrepreneur? Beyond the ‘employee or entrepreneur’ dichotomy”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 31, 2008, p. 93-115; Folta (Timothy B.), Delmar (Frédéric) and Wennberg (Karl), op. cit.; Petrova (Kameliia), “Part-time entrepreneurship and financial constraints: evidence from the Panel Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 39, 2012, p. 473-493; Raffiee (Joseph) and Feng (Jie), op.cit.; Schulz (Matthias), Urbig (Diemo) and Procher (Vivien), op.cit.; Thorgren (Sara), Siren (Charlotta), Nordström (Carin) and Wincent (Joakim), “Hybrid entrepreneurs’ second-step choice: The nonlinear relationship between age and intention to enter full-time entrepreneurship”, Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Vol. 5, 2016, p. 14-18.
-
[9]
Folta (Timothy B.), Delmar (Frédéric) and Wennberg (Karl), op.cit.; Raffiee (Joseph) and Feng (Jie), op.cit.; Solesvik (Marina Z.), “Hybrid Entrepreneurship: How and Why Entrepreneurs Combine Employment with Self-Employment”, Technology Innovation Management Review, Vol. 7 (3), 2017, p. 33-41.
-
[10]
Burke (Andrew E.), Fitzroy (Felix R.) and Nolan (Michael A.), op.cit.; Folta (Timothy B.), Delmar (Frédéric) and Wennberg (Karl), op.cit.; Gruenert (Jeffrey C.), “Second Job Entrepreneurs”, Occupational outlook quarterly, Vol. 43, 1999, p. 18-26; Petrova (Kameliia), “Part-time entrepreneurship, learning and ability”, Journal of management policy and practice, Vol. 12, 2011, p. 64-75; Raffiee (Joseph) and Feng (Jie), op.cit.
-
[11]
Burke (Andrew E.), Fitzroy (Felix R.) and Nolan (Michael A.), op.cit.; Folta (Timothy B.), Delmar (Frédéric) and Wennberg (Karl), op.cit.; Raffiee (Joseph) and Feng (Jie), op.cit.
-
[12]
Bullard (James), “Learning equilibria”, Journal of Economic Theory, Vol. 64, 1994, 468-485; Minniti (Maria) and Bygrave (William), “A dynamic model of entrepreneurial learning”, Entrepreneurship: Theory and practice, Vol. 25, 2001, p. 5-16.; Raffiee (Joseph) and Feng (Jie), op.cit.
-
[13]
Isaksen (Espen J.) and Kolvereid (Lars), “Growth objectives in Norwegian start-up businesses”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Vol. 2, 2005, p. 17-26.
-
[14]
We did not require hybrid entrepreneurs to have full-time jobs.
-
[15]
Note: The category “other” in the text and in Table 1 includes students, retired and disabled persons, drafted military personnel, homemakers and unemployed.
-
[16]
Chandler (Gaylen N.) and Jansen (Erik), “The founder’s self-assessed competence and venture performance”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 7 (3), 1992, p. 223-236.
-
[17]
Reynolds (Paul), Bygrave (William), Autio (Erkko), Cox (Larry W.) and Hay (Mivhael), Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, Kansas City: Kaufman Center, 2002.
-
[18]
Note: * indicates p ≤ .05; ** indicates p ≤ .01; *** indicates p ≤ .001.
-
[19]
Reynolds (Paul Davidson), op.cit.
-
[20]
Note: The figures reported are in million NOK (1 NOK = approx. 0.11 Euro).
-
[21]
1 NOK = approx. 0.11 Euro
-
[22]
McGrath (Rira Gunter), “Falling forward: Real options reasoning and entrepreneurial failure”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14 (1), 1999, p. 13-30.
