Entrepreneur’s Rating Exercise

At the conclusion of each interview, the entrepreneurs were tasked with completing a rating exercise. This rating exercise consisted of five pages with each page having the name of each conceptual dimension (e.g., organizational enthusiasm, stakeholder

alignment, etc.) with the conceptual definitions. The definitions were largely the same as the ones discussed in Chapter Three however at this particular time in the study, the definitions differed slightly. The original definitions were developed based on past cultural studies and their wording of cultural constructs. The primary difference between the original definitions and the current ones is that the verb “describing” was not used consistently among all the definitions to link “patterns of values, assumptions and

practices” with their attendant characteristics and attributes. Instead, different descriptive verbs were used (e.g., “indicating”, “showing”, "supporting"). These definitions were changed primarily to make the definitions more internally consistent. Using different descriptive verbs subtly changes the meaning of the dimensions. The focus of the dimensions shifts from a characterization of the particular values, assumptions, and practices that make up the dimension to a combination of the particular descriptive verb

and the characterization instead. These different descriptive verbs had the possibility of distorting the meaning away from the characterization of the cultural elements to the action or activity itself, which was not the intent. After the interviews it became apparent that the core message of the definition was in simply describing the different

characterizations of interest, rather than cause confusion through incorporating several different descriptive verbs. As a result, the definitions switched to a standardized format where a pattern of values, assumptions, and practices were describing particular

characteristics.

Following the definitions, a series of statements (i.e. questionnaire items) about that dimension were listed in rows with a numbered scale from 1-5 for each row, representing a rating of “not relevant” (1) to “relevant” (5). Taras’ (2011) Culture Survey Catalogue was used to review a large collection of various organizational culture scales used in past literature. The catalogue contains several dozen surveys describing several hundred Likert-scale based culture questions. The surveys span a number of different culture themes, including Hofstede-based culture items, coping measures, Machiavellianism, organizational culture, work values, and so on. Reading over these items and evaluating their fit with the desired dimension definitions, I selected a number of the questionnaire items to tap these dimensional concepts. I judged fit based on how well the questionnaire item seemed to reflect the core theme of each dimension (based on the definitions). A total of 15 questions for each dimension were desired for presentation to the

entrepreneurs for review. This seemed to strike a sufficient balance between having enough items for the pilot survey (under the assumption of reducing items after analysis) and not being too onerous/time consuming for the entrepreneurs.

Despite the breadth of the culture catalogue, no surveys dealt specifically with entrepreneurial culture. Since previous entrepreneurial culture surveys (see Chapter Two) dealt with completely different dimensions, they did not provide strong guidance for the selection of items. As a result, searching through the catalogue failed to produce a sufficient number of items. I developed a number of items myself when the review did not produce a sufficient number of potentially related items. The items were developed

using my best judgment, incorporating the wording of past culture questions (for form and structure) with elements of the key dimensional concepts of interest.

The purpose of this rating exercise was to have the entrepreneurs evaluate the statements against the definitions and rate which items they thought were more related to the

definition provided. This exercise was based in part on the content validity exercise described by Hinkin and Tracey (1999). The entrepreneurs were provided with verbal instructions on the exercise in the interview and a paper copy of the instructions and exercise with a self-addressed, stamped envelope. This rating exercise with instructions is included as Appendix B.

4.5.1

Analysis and Results

Of the 12 rating exercises distributed, 11 were completed and returned via post or scanned and emailed copy. The analysis of the rated items consisted of a simple summation to gauge the items rated most relevant (higher scores) versus less relevant (lower scores). Summing the scores for each of the 15 items in each dimension created a range of possible values from 0 to 55. The observed range was 27 to 50 with an average of 40.25 and standard deviation of 6.23. The 10 highest rated items for each dimension were selected as the questionnaire items for further rating in Phase Two of the data collection.

What became apparent when reviewing the questionnaire items in light of the interview results was that some of the questionnaire items did not appear to sufficiently capture the concepts intended in the development of the dimensions. The questionnaire items had been based on past culture questions and then modified to reflect the dimensions of interest. After the interviews were conducted and I had an opportunity to think through and review the transcripts, there was a sense of disconnection between some of the items and the sentiments expressed by the respondents. While some of the ideas seemed to be relatively well captured, others did not. This perhaps should have been expected since the items had been pulled from different instruments. While it was expected that not all of the items would be considered highly relevant by the respondents, this might have been exacerbated by items which may ultimately have been conceptually unrelated.

The two most obviously problematic dimensions were Cohesiveness and Opportunity Driven Change. With the Cohesiveness dimension, upon reflection the selected items seemed to describe a work expectation and job responsibility focus. Items such as "our leaders take responsibility for their decisions" and "everyone in the organization shares responsibilities for the organization's failures and successes" might be related to

cohesiveness but perhaps only tangentially. Originally these items were supposed to reflect the idea that employees demonstrate cohesion through personal responsibility for their own actions. Employees who shirk responsibility or blame others would not reflect a very cohesive culture. However, the results from the interviews including notions of trust, shared struggle, and the "band of brothers and sisters" seemed to describe different concepts than work expectations and job responsibilities. Instead, the desired focus was more about team work and mutual support. Accessing cohesion through work

expectations and job responsibility may be too indirect compared to more direct questions such as "I feel like I can count on others in the organization for support." Five questions in this dimension were changed as a result of this re-evaluation.

The Opportunity Driven Change dimension items also seemed to be reflecting unintended ideas. Several items were oriented more towards generalized risk-taking and innovation rather than changing to pursue or develop new opportunities. These risk-taking and innovation items seemed too abstract and removed from the intended notion of

innovation and change for or because of opportunities. For example, the original items included statements like "the term 'risk-taker' is considered a positive attribute for people in our business" and "in my organization I am afraid to share new ideas for fear of criticism." While these might be related to innovation and change, conceptually these might be reflecting different ideas, for example, fear of sharing ideas might be more related to workplace bullying. Different items such as "our organization moves quickly to go after new opportunities" and "more experienced employees encourage new people to experiment with new ideas or ways of doing things" were generated as replacements instead. These items seemed to much better reflect the intended concepts in this dimension.

As a result of this re-evaluation of the items post-interviews, several of the lower-ranked items were substituted for new items I developed to greater reflect the intended concepts. These items were carefully worded to tap into some of the core notions of the different dimensions discussed from the interviews. The final items used from this process are listed in Appendix C.

4.6 Conclusion

This chapter outlined the objective, procedure, sample, selection, and analysis and results of Phase One of the dissertation data collection, which was based on interviews with practicing entrepreneurs. The purpose of this phase was to explore the domain of entrepreneurial culture and compare the proposed conceptual model against the

experiences, expertise, and insights of entrepreneurs. The intention was to evaluate the real world fidelity of the model and to compare my conceptual thinking and interpretation against practitioner-described reality. The 12 interviews produced a wealth of data which largely supported the conceptual thinking of the model while also providing important context, nuance, and explanation to the respondent’s perspectives on entrepreneurial culture. This rich qualitative data helped to ground the model and provide evidence for the veracity of the proposed dimensions. This data also provided important foundational evidence for future culture work which might explore the formation of culture and its change in organizations. Lastly, this phase also described the rating exercise the entrepreneurs participated in which provided the basis for the second phase of data collection.

Chapter 5 : Methods and Analysis – Phase Two (Student