See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/235319381

Competencies matter: Modeling effective entrepreneurship in

northeast of Italy small firms

Article  in  Cross Cultural Management An International Journal · February 2012

DOI: 10.1108/13527601211195628

CITATIONS READS
55 1,904

3 authors:

Arnaldo Camuffo Fabrizio Gerli

Università commerciale Luigi Bocconi Università Ca' Foscari Venezia
83 PUBLICATIONS   2,173 CITATIONS    53 PUBLICATIONS   427 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Paolo Gubitta
University of Padova
29 PUBLICATIONS   243 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Paolo Gubitta on 06 August 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1352-7606.htm

CCM
19,1 Competencies matter: modeling
effective entrepreneurship
in northeast of Italy small firms
48
Arnaldo Camuffo
Department of Management, Bocconi University, Milan, Italy
Fabrizio Gerli
Department of Business Economics and Management,
Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Venice, Italy, and
Paolo Gubitta
Department of Economics, Padova University, Padova, Italy

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore if and to what extent the competency portfolio of
entrepreneurs affects firm’s performance, controlling for a set of individual and organizational
variables.
Design/methodology/approach – Applying nonparametric statistical analysis on data from
behavioral event interviews and survey questionnaires to a sample of 53 entrepreneurs (small firm
owners), this study investigates: the type, scope and depth of the entrepreneurs’ competence portfolio;
and the relationship between the entrepreneurs’ competence portfolio and their firm performance. The
empirical setting is a sample of northeast Italian small family businesses.
Findings – The authors’ research shows which are the functional, emotional and cross-functional
competencies that differentiate entrepreneurs’ performance and identifies which are the threshold
competencies (Self-control, Information gathering and Visioning) and the distinctive competencies
(Planning, Empathy, Business bargaining, Organizational awareness, Directing others and
Benchmarking).
Originality/value – The existing literature on the determinants of successful entrepreneurship
mostly focuses on technological, financial and institutional factors, even if entrepreneurs’ skills,
knowledge, creativity, imagination, and alertness to opportunities are at least as much important in
shaping small firms’ performance. Building on competency modeling techniques and emotional
intelligence literature, this study explores the link between personal characteristics and competencies
of entrepreneurs and the performance of their firms. The study offers some managerial implications,
provides direction to practitioners and policy makers on how to support entrepreneurship and small
business development, and suggests future research directions.
Keywords Italy, Entrepreneurialism, Competences, Small enterprises, Small businesses,
Entrepreneurship, Emotional intelligence, Self evaluation
Paper type Research paper

Cross Cultural Management
Vol. 19 No. 1, 2012
pp. 48-66
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1352-7606
DOI 10.1108/13527601211195628
1. Introduction
Reviewing the literature on the determinants of successful entrepreneurship, Sorensen
and Chang (2006) suggest that factors such as education, industry experience,
managerial experience and prior entrepreneurial experience are positively associated
with venture performance. They also underline that there is some evidence that traits
such as tenacity improve performance, as also highlighted by Brice and Spencer (2007),
Cuervo (2005) and Marcati et al. (2008).
 As a matter of fact, the largest part of existing literature on determinants of Entrepreneurship
successful entrepreneurship focuses on technological, financial and institutional in northeast
factors. This body of research, however, is characterized by several methodological
shortcomings, such as a restriction of the analysis to samples of new ventures and the of Italy
underestimation of personal attitudes and individual abilities.
Entrepreneurs’ skills, knowledge, creativity, imagination and alertness to
opportunities are important factors affecting small firms’ performance not only in 49
the early stage but also later, because entrepreneurs have incentives to foster firm
activities as a means of creating wealth (Zahra et al., 2009). As a firm grows in size and
complexity, the entrepreneur maintains a leading role in promoting corporate
entrepreneurship, the process of creating new business within established firms to
improve profitability and enhance a firm’s competitive position or the strategic renewal
of existing business (Zahra, 1991).
In this study, we explore the link between the personal characteristics and
competencies of entrepreneurs and the performance of the small family firms they own,
firms in which one or more families, linked by kinship, close affinity, or solid alliances
hold a sufficiently large share of equity to ensure control on strategic decisions.
The study is organized as follows. In the following section, we review the roles the
entrepreneur plays within small, family-owned firms. Sections 3 and 4 illustrate the
research design and the data, while Section 5 presents the key findings of our
investigation: the entrepreneurs’ competency portfolio and the relationship between
these competencies and firm performance. The final section discusses the findings,
offers some managerial implications and some suggestions for policy makers, and
provides some directions for future research.

2. How and why entrepreneur’s behavior affects firm performance

The ownership structure of a firm and the identity of the firm’s owners are important
factors with considerable implications for corporate strategy and performance: the
degree of ownership concentration is one measure of the influence of shareholders over
managerial activities; the identity of the shareholders influences the definition of strategic
objects and the manner in which these are achieved (Thomsen and Pedersen, 2003).
In family firms, for example, owning families have a long-term commitment to the
survival of the company, since the firm is only one of the family’s assets to be transferred
to future generations. For this reason, maximizing shareholder value remains an
important general objective, but it is not the only one. The strategy and performances of
family firms are also explained by the non-financial benefits, such as, for example,
investments in long-term projects, with the aim of increasing the number of
opportunities available to future generations or investments in activities which increase
the family’s reputation in the business community (Astrachan and Jaskiewicz, 2008).
If we focus on small- and medium-sized family firms, other factors which influence
firm performance come into play: the individual characteristics of the entrepreneur and
the organizational and cultural structure of the firm.
Within small and medium enterprises (SMEs henceforth), the decision-making process
is often centralized and consequently the individual characteristics of the entrepreneur
(personality, competencies) do influence SME competitiveness (Marcati et al., 2008).
Studies about entrepreneurship based on individual characteristics, primarily focused on
identifying differences between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs. These studies
CCM focused on the different ways entrepreneurs have to understand and
19,1 exploit environmental, economic and technological opportunities with respect to other
individuals. The personal differences that distinguish entrepreneurs from
non-entrepreneurs have been also shown to be determinant in leading to the decision of
pursuing an entrepreneurial career or not. For instance, Brice and Spencer (2007) identify
as a relevant factor in this decision the self-assessment of entrepreneurial self-efficacy.
50 One term of comparison that is often used in these differences studies are managers, as the
manager represents, together with the entrepreneur, a key actor in achieving a successful
performance. Other studies showed that entrepreneurs have specific characteristics,
compared to other categories of individuals, also in terms of use and collection of
information, information processing (Sarasvathy et al., 1998) and treatment of uncertainty
related to the external environment (McGee and Sawyer, 2003). The entrepreneurial role
and the managerial one are often incorporated by the same individual who embodies the
characteristics that the literature identifies for the two roles. His/her ability to interpret
environmental conditions and form the competitive scope of the firm plays a crucial role in
the relationship between the actual objective environment and the firm strategy (Man et al.,
2002). Entrepreneurs’ social skills, intended as his/her ability to interact with others, play
an important role in determining their success (Baron and Markman, 2000). Since the
availability of financial resources is a prerequisite for the firm to succeed, an interesting
perspective of analysis on entrepreneurs’ competencies is provided in some studies that
link firm success to those competencies that enable the entrepreneur to raise funds to
pursue his/her strategic objectives. For instance, Chen et al. (2009) identify passion and
preparedness of the entrepreneur as the key factors influencing venture capitalists’
investment decisions.
Within SMEs, in addition to the entrepreneurial and the managerial roles, there is a
third one that the entrepreneur has to play: the technical-functional role. If the
entrepreneur of SMEs incorporates all these roles, than his/her behaviors, decisions
and actions directly affect the overall strategy and the creation of organizational
capabilities, which include “innovative ability” (the ability to be innovative in new
products, services or processes), quality (the ability to maintain or achieve high quality
in products or services, which leads to a good image and reputation), cost-effectiveness
(the ability to achieve cost-effectiveness so as to set a competitive price), and organicity
(the ability to create and maintain flexible, organic organizational structures and
systems for achieving production speed and responsiveness) (Man et al., 2002, p. 135).
The organizational perspective described above, as opposed to the individual one,
introduces a further interpretative approach to entrepreneurship within small- and
medium-sized family firms, which takes into consideration organizational structure,
processes and the informal side of family firms. Zahra et al. (2008) link
entrepreneurship to organizational culture, showing the positive effects of family
firms’ culture, on entrepreneurship and on the ability to pursue new opportunities and
respond to threats in the competitive environment.
In sum, personality, competencies and role of the entrepreneur define the
entrepreneurial orientation of an SME, whose key features are the following five
(Lumpkin and Dess, 1996): autonomy (the degree to which organizational actors remain
free to make key decisions and to pursue opportunities), risk taking (firm’s proclivity to
support projects in which the expected returns are uncertain), innovativeness (firm’s
tendency to support new ideas and to foster creative processes), proactiveness
(firm’s proclivity to take initiative by anticipating and pursuing new business Entrepreneurship
opportunities), competitive aggressiveness (firm’s proclivity to challenge competitors in in northeast
order to achieve market entry or to improve position). An investigation carried out on a
sample of university spin-offs suggests that entrepreneurial orientation does not lead to of Italy
a superior firm performance (growth, profitability and long-term survival), but it has a
significant direct effect on the realization of the competitive advantage, contributes to the
relational capital of the firm and may produce non-financial contributions (Zahra, 1993). 51
As an alternative to individual and organizational approaches, some studies focus
on the social and economic context in which entrepreneurs operate and make decisions
and suggest that the environmental and institutional factors are the most important
dimension in entrepreneurship analysis. In this strand of interpretation, many studies
propose to explain superior entrepreneurial performance through the analysis of
industrial clusters in which the firm is located (Cuervo, 2005).
It is arguable that these theories should not be considered as sharply opposed to
each other, but as complementary in attempting to obtain a complete framework of the
entrepreneurship analysis. Personal competencies cannot be considered by themselves,
but have to be contextualized with respect to the internal environment (organizational
structures, processes and organizational culture) and the external environment
(institutions, competitors and other stakeholders).
An interesting work conducted by Lau et al. (2004) show the relationship that exists
among competencies, modes of entrepreneurship and the environment analyzing the
change in competencies and managerial practices of Hong Kong entrepreneurs after they
moved their operations from Hong Kong to the People’s Republic of China. However,
in Hayton and Kelley (2006) it is underlined that, in spite of the acknowledgement that
external environment conditions and internal organization structure and culture have an
influence in supporting corporate entrepreneurship, the role of individuals and their
characteristics remains paramount. Hayton and Kelley’s interpretation is particularly
appropriate if referred to the context of small enterprises where organizational processes
and management systems are usually not fully structured and, consequently, a prevalent
role is played by individuals who obtain knowledge in a tacit and informal way
(Camuffo and Comacchio, 2004; Camuffo and Gerli, 2007).
Understanding whether the entrepreneur’s profile influences firm performance has
particular importance and relevance in Italian SMEs, and more specifically those located
in North East Italy. After a long period of growth (from the 1970s to the 1990s), over the
last few years Italian SMEs have experienced a decline, which, according to some, is the
result of an increase in competitive pressure and global scenarios and, according to
others, the inability of the economic system to reallocate resources to those persons who
have the competencies to better manage the firms (Bianchi et al., 2005).
In other words, one side of the scientific debate is based on the implicit hypothesis
that, given a certain institutional structure, if the firms are lead by competent
entrepreneurs, their performance (and that of the economic system as a whole) will
inevitably be higher. Despite this apparently obvious relation, no data have yet been
collected to demonstrate it.

3. Research method
This research was conducted analyzing the competency portfolio of a sample of
entrepreneurs in order to investigate the relationship between these competencies
CCM and their firm’s performance, controlling for the effect of a set of personal and
19,1 organizational variables on this relationship. The characteristics of the sample
analyzed are described in the following section.
The entrepreneurs under analysis are a sample of participants to the first three
editions of the “Master for Entrepreneurs of SMEs”, a part-time master program with a
duration of 20 months organized by Fondazione CUOA, one of the most important
52 Italian business schools. The research was carried out on a sample of participants in
the 2006-2008, 2007-2009 and 2008-2010 editions of the master, excluding from the
analysis: those participants without an active role in their firm, those who did not want
to be surveyed and those who did not consent to the collection of the necessary
information regarding their firm.
Within the master course a process of analysis of the individual competencies was
implemented which was closely integrated with the educational process. This process
of analysis is made up of three checkpoints for the assessment of the participants’
competencies (at the beginning of the master, halfway through the master and at the
end of the master) in order to understand the initial situation of each person in detail
and monitor the degree of his/her development[1].
For the purposes of this research, the information considered was that resulting from
the initial check-up carried out on the participants of the editions mentioned above,
namely the check-up carried out at the beginning of their master course. This
information was then integrated to gather a set of personal, organizational and
performance variables to associate with the competency portfolio possessed by the
entrepreneurs. The decision to consider the initial findings concerning the competencies
meets the need to ensure the analysis is not influenced by the development of the
competencies generated by the master itself, which cannot reasonably be translated
immediately into a corresponding variation in the performance of the firms owned by the
participants. As a matter of fact, the objective of this research is not to assess the
effectiveness of the master to generate a variation in the performance of the firms owned
by its participants (this objective requires a broader temporal horizon of analysis, since it
is reasonable to expect that the competencies learnt by the entrepreneurs during the
master do not generate immediate effects on their firm’s performance), but rather to
ascertain the presence of a relationship between the entrepreneurs’ competency portfolio
and their firms’ performance.
Our analysis is made up of two parts: in the first part we analyze the composition of
the competency portfolio of the participants, gathered through their initial competency
check-up, and in the second part we analyze the existing relations between their
competency portfolio and their firm’s performance.

3.1 The analysis of the participants’ competency portfolio

To assess the competency portfolio possessed by the sample of entrepreneurs, three
instruments were used at the initial check-up stage:
(1) Self-assessment of functional competencies. A set of functional competencies
was evaluated by the sample of entrepreneurs via a self-assessment
questionnaire, aimed at identifying the degree of possession for 80 skills,
organized into 17 clusters, regarding the main areas of managerial knowledge
typically developed in an MBA (e.g. accountancy, finance, control, marketing,
HR management, organization, operations, internationalization, strategy, etc.).
 The skills contained in the questionnaire were defined by adapting the Entrepreneurship
functional skills profile questionnaire (Camuffo et al., 2006) by considering the in northeast
specific expected competencies for entrepreneurial roles in medium or small
firms, typical of the economic context of Northeast Italy. Each entrepreneur was of Italy
asked to assign a level of perceived possession to each skill, according to a scale
from 1 (“I do not possess this skill”) to 7 (“I master this skill”).
(2) Self-assessment of a set of emotional competencies. The entrepreneurs were 53
given an adapted version of the “Emotional Competence Inventory 1.0”
questionnaire (Boyatzis et al., 1999; Byrne et al., 2007), composed of
72 statements to which they had to state the extent to which they expressed
specific behaviors, according to a scale from 1 (“Never”) to 5 (“Consistently”),
with the possibility of also giving the evaluation: don’t know/I have never had
the opportunity to demonstrate this behavior. The 72 behaviors under
examination can be referred to 24 competencies grouped into five clusters
(self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship management
and cognitive competencies). The original ECI 1.0 version of the questionnaire
was adapted by adding one cluster related to the cognitive competencies, taken
from the ECI “university” version (Boyatzis and Goleman, 2001).
(3) Evaluation by a third party. A team of researchers interviewed, using
Behavioural Event Interviewing (BEI) techniques, all the entrepreneurs. Each
BEI was taped and then analyzed and coded[2] for frequency of occurrence[3]
(Boyatzis, 1998; Camuffo and Gerli, 2004). We used the Boyatzis’ codebook as an
initial main reference for coding (Boyatzis, 1982; Boyatzis et al., 1995). This
codebook categorizes 22 themes of competencies divided into three groups: goal
and action management abilities, people management abilities and analytic
reasoning abilities. Boyatzis’ codebook was augmented by 12 themes of
competencies by using thematic analysis in order to take into account further
behaviors that led to effective performance in the specific context. Following the
thematic analysis, the competencies added to the Boyatzis’ codebook are:
information gathering, result orientation, organizational commitment, customer
orientation, business bargaining, organizational awareness, directing others,
teamwork, leadership, visioning, benchmarking, process-based vision.

In addition to the information concerning the participants’ competency portfolio some

personal information was collected on the participants as well as some information on
their firms. The personal information collected included: gender, age, working
experience, experience in managerial roles, educational qualification, organizational
position and entrepreneurial generation. The information concerning the firms
included some size variables (turnover and number of employees and their trend over
the last three years), some qualitative variables (belonging to a group of firms and
group size, industry, aptitude to exportation) and some firm performance variables
(ROE and its trend over the last three years, ROI and its trend over the last three years).

3.2 The analysis of the relationship between competency portfolio and firm’s
performance
In this part of our analysis, we attempted to evaluate the relationship between
the entrepreneurs’ competency portfolio and their firms’ performance,
CCM through a competency modeling process. Moreover, we analyzed the effect of other
19,1 control variables on this relationship using multivariate statistical analysis techniques.
The steps we followed in the competency modeling process are described as follows.
Step 1. Definition of a performance criterion. The performance measurement of the
firms studied is based on a multidimensional analysis. The aspects considered in this
criterion are:
54 .
the number of patents in the firm portfolio;
.
the number of quality certifications possessed;
.
the quality of strategic performance; and
.
the trend in profitability over the last three years.

Since the analysis is conducted on firms operating in various industrial sectors, some
problems had to be tackled to build a complete and valid performance measurement
criterion. First of all, each considered dimension of analysis has a different weight in
determining firm performance. Second, not all the dimensions are applicable to every
firm. This is due to the fact that there are sectors in which the number of patents and the
number of quality certifications does not signal a superior performance. For instance,
firms who have relations with the public administrations present a larger number of
quality certifications because specific quality requirements are imposed by law and not
necessarily because these firms are better performers. Moreover, the profitability trend
is significantly influenced by the internal dynamics of the specific sector in which each
firm operates. To solve these problems, a panel of two independent experts was
consulted. The experts were selected for their academic experience and for their in-depth
knowledge of the firms analyzed and of their environmental context. They were asked to
express an evaluation about the performance of the firms. The evaluation implemented
the four dimensions of analysis with a personal judgment based on their professional
experience and on their previous knowledge of the specific situation of each firm.
Step 2. entrepreneurs’ ranking and classification. A ranking summary of the
entrepreneurs was obtained and they were classified into three categories according to
the explained criterion: best (38 percent of the sample), average (41 percent of the
sample) and poor performers (21 percent of the sample). Each sub-sample was analyzed
in terms of the characteristics of its members.
Step 3. Identification of competencies that differentiate entrepreneurs’ performance.
This statistical analysis has been built on the database stemming from the codification
for frequency of occurrence of the individual competencies gathered through BEIs.
A standard non-parametric statistical analysis has been conducted, using the
Mann-Whitney U test. This analysis allows us to understand which competencies
differentiate the three sub-samples of entrepreneurs defined according to the performance
criterion and, consequently, tests if best performers have more competencies than
average and poor performers. As an implication, this analysis identifies which
competencies are necessary to pursue an entrepreneurial career (threshold competencies)
and which ones lead to a superior performance (distinctive competencies).

4. Data and sample

A sample of 53 entrepreneurs has been analyzed. These entrepreneurs have attended
one of the three analyzed editions of the master: 41 percent attended the first edition,
34 percent the second edition and 25 percent the third edition. They are prevalently Entrepreneurship
male (72 percent) and have an average age of 35 years (the minimum age in the sample
is 26 and the maximum age is 53). All the subjects considered had some years of
in northeast
professional experience (13 years on average) and between eight and nine years, on of Italy
average, of experience in managerial roles (only one subject has no experience in this
field). Only 32 percent of the sample achieved university education. A significant
number of them (79 percent) are second generation entrepreneurs. 55
Their firms belong to the industrial sector (83 percent), to sales and distribution
(11 percent), and the remaining to the service sector (6 percent). Among the industrial
firms, over two-thirds operate in the most representative sectors of the north-east
economy: engineering (50 percent) and textiles/clothing (14 percent). None of the firms
in the sample operates in high-tech sectors.
The firms considered are small and medium sized with an average turnover of
e30.49 million and an average number of employees of 81. It is worth noting the
presence of an observation that constitutes a potential outlier with a total turnover of
e470 million. Without this observation the total turnover of the remaining firms in the
sample would be less than e215 million. However, the firm which can be considered as
an outlier in terms of total turnover, is small when compared with the biggest unit in its
field (big infrastructures construction), so that its relative size within the origin
industry can be classified as small[4]. The majority of firms in the sample have an
export activity (while 28.3 percent have no export activities at all) and 43 percent of
them belong to a group of firms.

5. Findings
5.1 The entrepreneurs’ competency portfolio
The first step of this research concerns the analysis of the competency portfolio
possessed by the analyzed sample of entrepreneurs, based on the information gathered
as described in the method section. As a consequence, of the instruments of analysis
used, it is possible to describe this competency portfolio according to three dimensions:
(1) portfolio of functional competencies drawn from self-assessment;
(2) portfolio of emotional competencies drawn from the adapted Emotional
Competency Inventory; and
(3) portfolio of competencies drawn from the BEI.
With regard to the functional competencies concerning the fields needed to manage a firm,
as seen in Table I, the sample is characterized by a rather modest average level of
competency possession, with scores placed in the lower part of the evaluation scale. The
cluster of skills which is perceived as possessed to a greater extent by the sample concerns
the use of computer equipment (personal computing, 50.24), within which the skills
related to the use of electronic mail and spreadsheets stand out. However, with reference to
the fields of managerial knowledge, the skill cluster possessed to a greater extent is
procurement (47.07) regarding the knowledge of procurement processes and
order-to-delivery processes, but less so with regard to markets knowledge aspects.
A group of clusters of technical skills follow, which are found in the evaluation class
between 30 and 40 (production and logistics, project management, total quality
management, organization, strategy, HR management and information technology). In the
low band of the evaluation scale we find those skills related to accounting (14.14),
CCM
Cluster of skills Average values SD
19,1
Personal computing 50.24 26.81
Procurement 47.07 23.66
Business English 39.97 31.33
Managerial communication 39.81 20.43
56 Production and logistics 35.65 20.39
Project management 34.36 21.06
Total quality management 33.74 24.99
Organization 32.72 22.77
Strategy 32.52 21.33
HR management 32.29 21.51
Information technology 30.29 24.48
Marketing and sales 29.75 23.94
Business law 27.16 21.31
Table I. Control 26.60 18.53
Self-assessment of International management 20.73 21.79
functional competencies Finance 15.59 19.59
(scale 0-100) Accounting 14.14 16.80

which are possessed only by a very small part of the sample, and the same for finance
(15.59) and international management (20.73). The analysis of the variability of the
evaluations expressed by the sample, carried out by observing their standard deviation,
highlights how the variability of the evaluations is, as a whole, homogenous for most of
the skill clusters and shows values from 20 to 25. This means that there are no clusters
with an internal variability which is particularly different from the others, with the
exception of the accounting, control and finance clusters (which have values more
concentrated around the average, with a standard deviation below 20) while the personal
computing and business English clusters show a greater dispersion, which translates in
standard deviation values above 25. From the analysis of the correlation between these
competencies, a significant correlation between nearly all the skill clusters can be
observed, indicating a substantial uniformity in the composition of the entrepreneurs’
portfolio of competencies: in other words, a higher possession of some technical
competencies in one entrepreneur tends to be accompanied by a higher possession of other
technical competencies in the same entrepreneur, and vice versa. On the whole, there is a
substantially limited but significantly homogenous portfolio of functional competencies.
The portfolio of emotional competencies gathered via the emotional competencies
inventory is broad and rather homogenous, as shown in Table II. The competencies that
are considered as being possessed to a greater extent by the sample belong to the social
awareness (72.90) and self-awareness (70.11) clusters. Also the self-management
competencies have values which are on the whole high (68.76), while the relationship
management and cognitive competencies have slightly lower values. More in detail, the
competencies possessed to a greater degree, according to the perception of the sample of
entrepreneurs, are service orientation (78.70) and optimism (78.01). Moreover, the
competencies possessed with values above 70 belong to all the clusters of competencies
under analysis: this indicates how the whole portfolio found in the sample is
characterized by good breadth. However, there some competencies that are possessed to
a lower degree, including influence (58.02), conflict management (58.41)
 Entrepreneurship
Average values SD
in northeast
1. Self-awareness 70.11 13.59 of Italy
1.1 Emotional awareness 75.31 13.73
1.2 Accurate self-assessment 74.23 12.88
1.3 Self-confidence 60.80 14.17
2. Self-management 68.76 14.96 57
2.1 Self-control 61.73 18.14
2.2 Result orientation 65.90 14.39
2.3 Initiative 61.73 16.31
2.4. Reliability 69.75 14.86
2.5 Conscientiousness 74.54 14.34
2.6 Adaptability 69.68 13.41
2.7 Optimism 78.01 13.26
3. Social awareness 72.90 12.58
3.1 Empathy 70.06 11.51
3.2 Service orientation 78.70 11.86
3.3 Organizational awareness 70.14 12.99
3.4 Cultural awareness 72.69 13.96
4. Relationship management 64.74 15.43
4.1 Inspirational leadership 65.74 17.49
4.2 Communication 59.34 17.86
4.3 Conflict management 58.41 13.89
4.4 Change catalyst 72.69 15.81
4.5 Influence 58.02 16.64
4.6 Developing others 67.52 11.02
4.7 Relationship creation 61.73 18.71
4.8 Teamwork 74.46 12.06 Table II.
5. Cognitive 63.04 14.57 Self-assessment of
5.1 Systemic thinking 61.50 13.92 emotional competencies
5.2 Pattern recognition 64.58 15.22 (scale 0-100)

and communication (59.34). From a comprehensive point of view, the competency

portfolio resulting from this analysis highlights some strengths and weaknesses of the
sample: on the one hand, the dimension of the competencies which have a direct impact
on the subjects analyzed (self-awareness and self-management) appears to be broadly
possessed, but, on the other hand, the same cannot be said for some relational
competencies, with regard to which, while there is higher social awareness we find that
this does not translate into equally high relational management skills. Similarly, the
cognitive dimension represents an area which has been possessed less than the others.
In this case too, from the analysis of the correlations between these competencies,
a significant correlation between nearly all the competencies analyzed with ECI can be
observed, indicating a substantial uniformity of the individual competency portfolio:
in other words, a greater possession of some emotional competencies in one entrepreneur
tends to be accompanied by a greater possession of other emotional competencies in the
same entrepreneur, and vice versa. The competencies that do not confirm this behavior,
and which therefore are not correlated with the others, are only self-control and
conscientiousness.
Lastly, with reference to the cross-functional competencies analyzed through the BEI,
we find a broad overall competency portfolio, as shown in Table III. The most frequent
CCM
Cluster Competencies Frequency (%) SD
19,1
Action and attainment skills Efficiency orientation 49.61 22.25
Planning 43.74 22.04
Initiative 40.10 24.28
Attention to detail 26.12 23.55
58 Self-control 4.20 10.11
Flexibility 8.83 14.88
Information gathering 27.66 22.51
Result orientation 59.71 16.12
Organizational commitment 8.52 14.89
People management skills Empathy 27.53 24.55
Persuasiveness 30.52 23.80
Networking 24.46 24.65
Negotiation 4.38 10.56
Self-confidence 26.86 25.97
Group management 15.25 18.57
Developing others 19.07 20.84
Oral communication 13.73 18.00
Customer orientation 15.19 18.69
Business bargaining 10.25 14.37
Organizational awareness 2.78 7.72
Directing others 20.26 22.22
Teamwork 17.22 22.71
Leadership 11.36 14.97
Analytical reasoning skills Use of concepts 50.87 15.69
System thinking 5.56 11.81
Pattern recognition 19.26 18.57
Theory building 0.37 2.70
Use of technologies 19.48 21.00
Quantitative analysis 7.28 12.86
Social objectivity 0.74 3.78
Written communication 8.60 13.50
Table III. Visioning 5.43 12.33
Portfolio of competencies Process-based vision 2.16 6.12
found through the BEI Benchmarking 3.21 7.20

competencies are those from the goal and action management cluster (which represent
42.60 percent of the overall portfolio of competencies), followed by people management
competencies (37.90 percent) and analytical reasoning skills (19.50 percent). With regard
to the goal and action management competencies, the two competencies which are most
frequent in the critical incidents described in the BEIs are result orientation (59.71 percent)
and efficiency orientation (49.61 percent). Also the competencies of planning and
initiative are well represented, with a frequency above 40 percent, while flexibility,
self-control and organizational commitment are present to a lesser degree, with values
below 10 percent. The propensity towards action and the attainment of results, through
an efficient use of the available resources and a continuous attention to improvement are,
therefore, the most frequent reasons of professional effectiveness in the entrepreneurs
under analysis. Amongst the interpersonal competencies, persuasion (30.52 percent),
empathy (27.53 percent), self-confidence (26.86 percent) and networking
(24.46 percent) stand out, while on the other hand the competencies of negotiation
(4.38 percent) and organizational awareness (2.78 percent) show significantly more Entrepreneurship
modest frequency values. Consequently, it is possible to see a significant attention to the in northeast
relational dimension in the competency portfolio of the analyzed entrepreneurs, also
shown in the ability to influence others by understanding their strengths and of Italy
weaknesses, but also in the networking skills. Lastly, with regard to the cognitive
component of the portfolio, a significant presence only of the competencies of use of
concepts (50.87 percent), use of technologies (19.48 percent), and pattern recognition 59
(19.26 percent) can be found. This indicates the tendency of the sample of entrepreneurs to
reflect frequently and systematically on their own experience in order to derive a more
general knowledge. On the whole, we find a broad portfolio of competencies which is
focused on a limited number of competencies present to a more frequent extent. However,
some other competencies, observed with a definitely lower frequency and found
following a process of thematic analysis, such as visioning (5.43 percent), benchmarking
(3.21 percent) and customer orientation (15.19 percent) represent an interesting signal of a
strategic attention paid through the different behaviors expressed by the sample in the
attainment of effective results. Different from before, the correlation analysis does not
show any systematic and widespread correlation amongst the competencies found by
BEI: however, we found some specific competencies correlated significantly with others,
indicating how the attainment of effective results can be obtained through complex
behavioral strategies which require the activation of a plurality of different competencies.
Those competencies which are correlated to a greater extent with others in our sample
are: networking, planning, oral communication, empathy and negotiation.
Although a direct comparison is not possible, there are some elements of coherence
and of incoherence between the competencies found using self-evaluation and those
found using BEI. In particular, the results obtained with regard to the low possession
of some competencies (negotiation, system thinking and self-control) and the high
possession of others (empathy, development of others) are consistent, while there are
some contradictions about the level of possession of other competencies, which show a
high frequency though BEI but not through ECI (persuasiveness/influence,
self-confidence, networking, initiative, pattern recognition and result orientation),
or – vice versa – a high frequency of possession through ECI but not through BEI
(for example, teamwork and organizational awareness).
This kind of difference is not surprising, because of the different perspectives
adopted by individual self-assessment and by third-party evaluation, and because of the
process of distortion of the individual perception which a self-evaluator is subject to.
Hansson (2001) shows that the self-perception is more accurate when evaluating
job-specific competencies, related to knowledge and skills, whereas it is more complex
when referred to more general traits and attributes. In accordance to this, in this study
the self-evaluation conducted on the functional skills could be considered as more
accurate than the self-evaluation conducted on the emotional competencies. However, in
this section of this study, the aim is not to identify the most accurate perspective, but –
as explained before – to identify the entrepreneurs’ competency portfolio through the
comparison of different perspectives and the analysis of their differences. Another
important value of self-assessment has to be considered in terms of feedback tool for
each component of the sample analyzed, and for his/her individual process of self-image
construction: for this reason we provided a personal report to each entrepreneur with the
comparison of the different evaluation perspectives.
CCM Consistent with this, in the section of this study devoted to identify a relationship
19,1 between competencies and firm performance through a competency modeling process,
we used the data coming from third-party evaluation (through BEIs) in order to avoid
any risk of subjective evaluations, as explained in the method section.
Further investigation on the portfolio of competencies found in the sample of
entrepreneurs concerns the presence of any relationships between some personal and
60 organizational variables regarding the sample of entrepreneurs and the overall
dimension of their competency portfolio (that is the sum of the frequencies of all the
competencies expressed by each subject). This analysis was carried out using the
Mann-Whitney U test to divide the sample according to the control variables
( p , 0.05, one-tailed test). The following results were observed from this analysis:
. The overall dimension of the competency portfolio of the entrepreneurs in the
sample shows a relation with their gender and educational qualification. In
particular, male entrepreneurs have a broader overall portfolio of both
cross-functional (found through third-party evaluation with BEI, z ¼ 1.97,
p ¼ 0.03) and functional (z ¼ 2.27, p ¼ 0.01) competencies than female
entrepreneurs. Furthermore, the entrepreneurs with degrees have a broader
portfolio of cross-functional competencies (found through self-evaluation with
ECI, z ¼ 2.08, p ¼ 0.02) than those with just diplomas. There are however no
significant differences in the overall dimension of their competency portfolio
with regard to the variables: age, work experience, entrepreneurial generation
and firm size. For this reason, educational qualification and gender seem to be
the most important personal variables to have an impact on the overall
dimension of the entrepreneurs’ competency portfolio.
.
Some personal variables have an impact on specific competencies. In particular,
through the analysis of the BEIs, those entrepreneurs with a higher educational
qualification show a significantly higher possession of the competencies:
initiative, development of others, customer orientation, leadership and visioning.
Moreover, those entrepreneurs with a higher working experience show a
significantly higher possession of the competencies: teamwork, system thinking,
use of technology and visioning.
.
The size of the firm and its belonging to a group of firms do not have a
significant impact on the composition of the competency portfolio possessed by
the sample: in fact, an extremely limited number of relationships are found
between the variables related to firm size (in terms of turnover and number of
employees) and the possession of specific competencies. The same result is found
with reference to the belonging to a group of firms. The only relationship found
concerns the fact that those entrepreneurs who own larger firms present a
significantly higher possession of the competencies Planning (z ¼ 2.11,
p ¼ 0.02), Negotiation (z ¼ 1.77, p ¼ 0.04), Oral communication (z ¼ 1.90,
p ¼ 0.03) and Business bargaining (z ¼ 2.78, p ¼ 0.003).

These results can provide an argument for the relevance of some personal variables
rather than of some firm variables on the composition of entrepreneurs’ competency
portfolio: it seems as if the characteristics of their firms do not have a significant
impact on the entrepreneurs’ competencies, while some individual aspects, such as
their education and their experience, do.
5.2 The relationship between competencies possessed and firm performance Entrepreneurship
This section proposes the results of the multi-firm competency model explained in the in northeast
“method” section, aimed at identifying a relationship between entrepreneurs’
competency possession and their firms’ performance. In other words, this analysis is of Italy
devoted to identifying those competencies significantly related to a better firm
performance. The results we obtained are described as follows.
After defining the three sub-samples according to the performance criterion 61
explained in the “method” section, we conducted a descriptive analysis of each
sub-sample. First, we counted the number of competencies expressed through BEI by
each entrepreneur: this number resulted, on average, 16. For best performers the
average competency portfolio is composed of 17 competencies, for average performers
of 15 competencies and for poor performers of 16. This may be a signal that the number
of competencies expressed does not significantly explain the performance.
Second, we analyzed other variables in the sub-samples. The average age of best
performers, between 37 and 38 years old, is only slightly higher than the average age of
the whole sample. It is observable that 20 percent of best performers are women
as compared to 27 percent of women present in the whole sample. The average number of
years of professional experience for best performers is 15. About 40 percent of the best
performers achieved university education. All the poor performers are second generation
entrepreneurs, only 22 percent of them achieved university education and 44 percent are
women. Their average number of years of professional experience is 13 and on average,
they are 35 years old. Thus, on average, best performers seem to be slightly older, better
educated and more experienced. Furthermore, best performers score higher than the
other two groups in the self-evaluation questionnaire about functional skills.
Interestingly, poor performers’ average score is higher than that of average performers.
Finally, we performed the Mann-Whitney U test in order to detect the competencies
that differentiate the three sub-samples (Table IV). In order to identify the distinctive
competencies we compared the groups of best and average performers and identified
the competencies that significantly differentiate the sub-sample of best performers
from the sub-sample of average performers, according to a defined significance level.
Then, in order to identify the threshold competencies, we compared the groups of
average and poor performers, and identified the competencies that significantly
differentiate the two sub-samples. Lastly, we compared the groups of best and poor
performers, in order to confirm the previously identified categories of competencies.
From this analysis, we found six distinctive competencies (planning, empathy,
business bargaining, organizational awareness, directing others and benchmarking)
and three threshold competencies (self-control, information gathering and visioning).
It is possible to observe how a higher performance in the firms analyzed is
associated with the possession, by their entrepreneurs, of a set of competencies which
is not numerous but varied. This set includes the ability to define action plans and
programs for the future, also based on a process of strategic benchmarking on the
competitors, as well as interpersonal competencies, such as the ability to understand
others and their strengths and weaknesses, to conduct successful negotiations, to
exercise authority (not leadership) and a direct and continuous control over their
assistants. It also includes an in-depth understanding of the characteristics, even those
less visible, of their organization and its functional procedures. In order to attain an
average performance, however, the competencies involved concern the entrepreneurs’
CCM
Best vs Average Best vs
19,1 Freq. Freq. Freq. average: vs poor: poor: Distinctive Threshold
Competencies best average poor z-valuesa z-valuesa z-valuesa competencies competencies

Efficiency
orientation 53.50 45.10 50.61 1.143 2 0.424 0.611
62 Planning 54.50 40.09 31.82 2.253 * * 0.907 2.308 * * U
Initiative 41.50 33.13 51.52 1.157 2 1.807 * * 20.919
Attention to detail 26.17 30.77 19.09 20.286 1.174 0.669
Self-control 5.67 5.15 0.00 0.527 1.482 * 1.777 * * U
Flexibility 8.50 6.82 10.61 0.186 2 0.937 21.006
Information
gathering 32.17 29.72 17.88 0.308 1.291 * 1.793 * * U
Result orientation 60.00 57.33 65.76 1.015 2 1.436 * 20.602
Organizational
commitment 10.83 6.52 7.27 0.855 2 0.255 0.449
Empathy 36.00 19.39 30.91 2.251 * * 2 1.159 0.465 U
Persuasiveness 32.50 24.47 36.36 1.277 2 1.489 * 20.467
Networking 30.17 14.89 35.45 2.509 * * * 2 2.134 * * 20.606
Negotiation 4.50 3.33 6.67 0.582 2 0.429 20.090
Self-confidence 30.00 25.31 26.67 0.312 2 0.098 0.021
Group
management 14.83 13.18 17.88 0.505 2 0.565 0.000
Developing others 21.17 15.91 21.52 0.975 2 0.524 20.043
Oral
communication 16.50 10.53 16.36 0.995 2 0.661 0.067
Customer
orientation 9.67 18.79 19.39 21.488 * 2 0.161 20.877
Business
bargaining 15.00 8.03 6.97 1.457 * 0.282 1.452 * U
Organizational
awareness 5.67 0.76 0.00 1.925 * * 0.707 1.773 * * U
Directing others 24.67 13.83 21.52 1.675 * * 2 0.70 0.617 U
Teamwork 19.00 18.64 9.09 0.701 0.865 1.428 *
Leadership 14.83 7.27 14.24 1.647 * * 2 1.532 * 0.000
Use of concepts 52.00 50.92 47.88 0.077 0.484 0.452
Systemic thinking 3.00 6.36 9.09 21.327 * 2 0.22 21.258
Pattern
recognition 18.50 20.45 20.00 20.195 0.188 20.280
Theory building 0.00 0.91 0.00 20.953 0.707 0.000
Use of
technologies 13.67 24.02 22.73 21.860 * * 0.259 21.320 *
Quantitative
analysis 4.00 7.42 13.64 20.917 2 0.707 21.293 *
Social objectivity 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.502 n/a 1.067
Written
communication 9.83 8.53 7.27 0.206 0.179 0.122
Visioning 3.67 9.09 0.00 21.071 1.874 * * 1.328 * U
Process-based
vision 2.83 1.82 1.82 0.538 0 0.426
Table IV. Benchmarking 5.83 1.67 1.82 1.769 * * 2 0.038 1.297 * U
Results of the competency
modeling process Notes: *p , 0.10, * *p , 0.05, * * *p , 0.01 (one tailed); az-values for Mann-Whitney U test
ability to define a vision for their firm, to collect, in an original manner, not easily Entrepreneurship
available information but useful for their business or activity, as well as the ability of in northeast
maintaining self-control in stressful and emotionally intense situations.
From the analysis of these results it is also possible to observe some issues that of Italy
require some additional analysis and a more fine grained interpretation. First of all, by
considering the significant differences among sub-samples shown by the
Mann-Whitney U test within the competency modeling process, there is a certain 63
number of competencies that present an inverse relationship with performance, since
these are possessed in a more significant degree by those entrepreneurs with “poor”
performances (initiative, result orientation and persuasiveness). Then, there are some
competencies that are possessed in a significantly higher degree by the sub-samples of
best and poor performers, and less by that of average performers (networking and
leadership), showing a U-shaped relationship with firm performance. Without
considering problems related to the specific sample composition, the reason why a
linear relation between competency and performance is not always present in our
results could be due to the existence of some behaviors that represent some
“competency traps” for the entrepreneurial role here considered. In other words, they
could represent a signal with regard to aspects which are not consistent with or
supportive of entrepreneurial effectiveness. For this reason, another result of this
analysis seems to be the identification of these competencies with a complex relation
with performance, which represent a set of behaviors which may have a dysfunctional
impact on the overall firm performance, even if they had a positive impact on the single
and specific event in which they had been demonstrated.
In accordance to this, it must be taken into consideration that the framework of
reference adopted for the thematic analysis of the BEIs was principally the Boyatzis’
(1982) codebook (though with the above-illustrated adaptations), which refers to
managerial roles. Coherently, it is not fully surprising how a significant part of the
competencies identified as distinctive or threshold does not belong to that codebook,
but derives from other codebooks (Spencer and Spencer, 1993) or from the result of an
ad hoc thematic analysis based on the specific episodes of effectiveness described by
the entrepreneurs. This represents an element that can be taken into consideration for
the future development of the research.

6. Implications
Our analysis of entrepreneurs’ competencies offers some original insights on the nature
of small- and medium-size Italian family firms.
On the one hand, the overall dimension of the competency portfolio of the
entrepreneurs shows a relation with their gender and educational qualification: male
entrepreneurs have a broader overall portfolio of both cross-functional and functional
competencies than female entrepreneurs; the educational qualification shows a
significant relationship with 19 different competencies. On the contrary, the size of the
firm and its belonging to a group do not have a significant impact on the composition
of the competency portfolio possessed by the sample.
On the other hand, we identified both the competencies possessed by the best
performers and the competencies that significantly distinguish low performances,
since these are possessed to a more significant degree by those entrepreneurs with
“poor” performances.
CCM These findings present some implications for practitioners and for future
19,1 research. A first implication is for business schools that could improve their educational
processes, to enhance the development of certain specific competencies. Another
implication is for future research, and it concerns the opportunity to verify if the
competency portfolio of successful entrepreneurs is really consistent with the model of
four entrepreneurial competencies proposed by Hayton and Kelley (2006).
64 Our findings also provide some guidance to policy makers. Industrial policy tools,
including incentives to investment, tax breaks and direct support should be targeted
to help entrepreneurs maintain or develop the competencies that have proven to be
associated with successful business models. Our study could be replicated in other
countries and regions, and it should be particularly helpful for those emerging regions
and countries that believe in a more “distributed” and diffused model of economic
development, with small, family-owned firms playing a central role.

Notes
1. The process of competency check-up integrated in the master program was designed both
with the aim of providing support to the participants, by enabling them to be aware of their
own characteristics and allowing them to best direct their learning process, according to a
self-directed learning approach (Kolb and Boyatzis, 1970; Kolb et al., 1968), as well as to
orientate the design of the program (so as to allow a more correct analysis of participants’
educational needs and, consequently, a more precise definition of the master course program)
and to assess the education provided. In its intermediate stage (halfway through the master),
the check-up process also includes a 3608 feedback stage. This process of competency
check-up implemented in the Master for Entrepreneurs originates from the research and
application experiences carried out in previous years on the Master programs of the
Fondazione CUOA for both young graduates as well as managers and executives (Camuffo
and Gerli, 2004; Camuffo et al., 2006, 2009).
2. Double-coding technique was used to attain higher reliability (Boyatzis, 1998) and a
percentage of agreement of more than 90 percent was always obtained.
3. The frequency of occurrence of a competency is the number of times a competency is
detected out of the maximum possible number of times it can be detected; for example,
a 10 percent frequency means that a competency appears in one behavioral event out of ten.
More generally, we coded for frequency of occurrence using the following measure:
Pn Pn
Fi ¼ ð j CC i;j Þ=ð j PC i;j Þ;

with:
Fi: frequency of competency i;
CCi,n: coded competencies: the number of behaviors associated with competency i detected in
the interview with subject j (independently on the specific behavioral indicator); and
PCi,n: potential competencies: the maximum number of behaviors associated with
competency i detectable in the interview with subject j (independently on the specific
behavioral indicator).
4. Such a consideration is based on the embracement, in this paper, of the definition provided in
Man et al. (2002) of an SME as a firm that follows one or more of the following criteria (1).
Independence of management (2). Capital supplied and ownership held by an individual or a
small group (3). Area of operations mainly local (4). Relatively small compared to the
industry.
References Entrepreneurship
Astrachan, J.H. and Jaskiewicz, P. (2008), “Emotional returns and emotional costs in privately in northeast
held family businesses: advancing traditional business valuation”, Family Business
Review, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 129-39. of Italy
Baron, R.A. and Markman, G.D. (2000), “Beyond social capital: the role of social skills in
entrepreneurs’ success”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 14, pp. 106-16.
Bianchi, M., Bianco, M., Giacomelli, S., Pacces, A.M. and Trento, S. (2005), Proprietà E Controllo 65
Delle Imprese in Italia, Bologna, Il Mulino.
Boyatzis, R.E. (1982), The Competent Manager: A Model for Effective Performance, Wiley,
New York, NY.
Boyatzis, R.E. (1998), Transforming Qualitative Information. Thematic Analysis and Code
Development, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Boyatzis, R.E. and Goleman, D. (2001), Emotional Competence Inventory – University Version,
Hay Group, Boston, MA.
Boyatzis, R.E., Cowen, S.S. and Kolb, D.A. (1995), Innovation in Professional Education,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Boyatzis, R.E., Goleman, D. and Rhee, K. (1999), “Clustering competence in emotional
intelligence: insights from the Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI)”, in Bar-On, R. and
Parker, J.D. (Eds), Handbook of Emotional Intelligence, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Brice, J. and Spencer, B. (2007), “Entrepreneurial profiling: a decision policy analysis of the
influence of entrepreneurial self-efficacy on entrepreneurial intent”, Academy of
Entrepreneurship Journal, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 47-67.
Byrne, J.C., Dominick, P.G., Smither, J.W. and Reilly, R.R. (2007), “Examination of the
discriminant, convergent, and criterion-related validity of self-ratings on the Emotional
Competence Inventory”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 15 No. 3,
pp. 341-53.
Camuffo, A. and Comacchio, A. (2004), “The competent middle manager. Framing individual
knowledge in North-East Italian SMEs”, International Journal of Innovation and Learning,
Vol. 4, pp. 330-50.
Camuffo, A. and Gerli, F. (2004), “An integrated competency-based approach to management
education: an Italian MBA case study”, International Journal of Training & Development,
Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 240-57.
Camuffo, A. and Gerli, F. (2007), “Competent production supervisor”, Industrial Relations, Vol. 46
No. 4, pp. 728-37.
Camuffo, A., Gerli, F. and Chiara, F. (2006), “Tracking careers to improve competency-based
management education: a longitudinal study of Italian MBAs”, in Wankel, C. and
DeFillippi, R. (Eds), New Visions of Graduate Management Education, Research in
Management Education and Development Series, Vol. 5, Information Age, London.
Camuffo, A., Gerli, F., Borgo, S. and Somià, T. (2009), “The effects of management education on
careers and compensation: a competency-based study of an Italian MBA program”,
Journal of Management Development, Vol. 29.
Chen, X., Yao, X. and Kotha, S. (2009), “Entrepreneur passion and preparedness in business plan
presentations: a persuasion analysis of venture capitalists’ funding decisions”,
The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 199-214.
Cuervo, A. (2005), “Individual and environmental determinants of entrepreneurship”,
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 1, pp. 293-311.
CCM Hansson, B. (2001), “Competency models: are self-perceptions accurate enough?”, Journal of
European Industrial Training, Vol. 25 No. 9, pp. 428-41.
19,1 Hayton, J.C. and Kelley, D. (2006), “A competency-based framework for promoting corporate
entrepreneurship”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 407-27.
Kolb, D.A. and Boyatzis, R.E. (1970), “Goal-setting and self-directed behavior change”, Human
Relations, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 439-57.
66 Kolb, D.A., Winter, S.K. and Berlew, D.E. (1968), “Self-directed change: two studies”, Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 453-71.
Lau, T., Chan, K.F. and Ho, R. (2004), “Cross-border entrepreneurs – a study of the changing
strategies and competencies of Hong Kong entrepreneurs upon exposure to the emerging
market of China”, Journal of Enterprising Culture, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 165-93.
Lumpkin, G.T. and Dess, G.G. (1996), “Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and
linking it to performance”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 135-72.
McGee, J. and Sawyer, O. (2003), “Uncertainty and information search activities”, Journal of Small
Business Management, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 385-401.
Man, T.W.Y., Lau, T. and Chan, K.F. (2002), “The competitiveness of small and medium
enterprises: a conceptualization with focus on entrepreneurial competencies”, Journal of
Business Venturing, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 123-42.
Marcati, A., Guido, G. and Peluso, A.M. (2008), “The role of SME entrepreneurs’ innovativeness
and personality in the adoption of innovations”, Research Policy, Vol. 37 No. 9, pp. 1579-90.
Sarasvathy, D.K., Simon, H.A. and Lave, L. (1998), “Perceiving and managing business risks:
differences between entrepreneurs and bankers”, Journal of Economic Behavior
& Organization, Vol. 33, pp. 207-25.
Sorensen, J. and Chang, P. (2006), “Determinants of successful entrepreneurship: a review of the
recent literature”, February 1, SSRN: available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract¼1244663
Spencer, L.M. and Spencer, S.M. (1993), Competence at Work: Models for Superior Performance,
Wiley, New York, NY.
Thomsen, S. and Pedersen, T. (2003), “Ownership structure and value of the largest European
firms: the importance of owner identity”, Journal of Management and Governance, Vol. 7,
pp. 27-55.
Zahra, S.A. (1991), “Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship:
an exploratory study”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 259-85.
Zahra, S.A. (1993), “A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior: a critique and
extension”, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 5 No. 21.
Zahra, S.A., Filatotchev, I. and Wright, M. (2009), “How do threshold firms sustain corporate
entrepreneurship?. The role of boards and absorptive capacity”, Journal of Business
Venturing, Vol. 24, pp. 248-60.
Zahra, S.A., Hayton, J.C., Neubaum, D.O., Dibrell, C. and Craig, J. (2008), “Culture of family
commitment and strategic flexibility: the moderating effect of stewardship”,
Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 1035-54.

Corresponding author
Arnaldo Camuffo can be contacted at: arnaldo.camuffo@unibocconi.it

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

View publication stats