Download Report

HOW TO INNOVATE SOCIALLY? A STUDY TO ANALYZE THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ENTREPRENEURAL COMPETENCIES AND
INNOVATIVE BEHAVIORS OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURS
Oktay Koc
Cagla Yavuz
Çanakkale Onsekizmart University, Turkey
Abstract
Purpose - The purpose of this study is to examine the concept of social entrepreneurship in the context of social entrepreneurial
competencies and also innovative behaviors of social entrepreneurs.
Design/methodology/approach - Stranding on competency approach, social entrepreneurs‟ entrepreneurial competencies and
innovative behaviors are examined. Data is collected from social entrepreneurs who are fellows of Ashoka Foundation-Turkey
through web based survey method. Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis are used as statistical methods.
Findings - There is high rated linear and positive correlation between entrepreneurial competencies and individual innovative
behaviors. Additionally, high level of education and having someone with experienced in social entrepreneurship fields in family
affects individuals positively to become a social entrepreneur.
Research limitations - Limited by inadequate sample and additionally, entrepreneurial competencies of social entrepreneurs are
evaluated in the context of entrepreneurial role rather than entrepreneurs‟ managerial and functional role. For further studies,
evaluating all social entrepreneurs who are chosen successful by various organizations would help us to conclude more reliable
assessment of their profiles.
Social Implications - This study draws attention to importance of social entrepreneurs in solving social problems, besides this,
education in social entrepreneurship for social awareness and to acquire required competencies to be social entrepreneur.
Originality/value - Important step to enhance our theoretical understanding of the phenomenon of social entrepreneurs‟
competencies and innovative behaviors. Additionally, in this regard includes Turkish social entrepreneurs‟ profile.
Key words: Social Entrepreneurs, Entrepreneurial Competencies, Individual Innovative Behaviors
Paper type: Research paper
Introduction
Because of its critical role on social welfare and development, social entrepreneurship has been discussed by
many researchers (e.g. Alvord et al.,2004; Certo and Miller,2008; Peredo and McLean,2006; Sharir and
Lerner,2006). During the process of social entrepreneurship, especially the social entrepreneurs, who initiate
this process with observing and analyzing needs, have a vital importance to create social benefit through
“providing to answer social problems and needs, whether educational, welfare, environmental or health
related (www.ashoka.org.com).”
Many researchers have been performed on the factors influencing social entrepreneurs‟ behaviors
motivating them to initiate social enterprise. In determining entrepreneurs‟ behavioral motivations, some
researchers have considered the role of social and cultural structures (Bygrave and Minniti, 2000;
Chell,1986; Mueller and Thomas,2000), while it is examined by considerable amount of researchers through
personality approach including demographical and personality traits of entrepreneurs (Kümbül Güler,2008).
In demographical context, growing evidence suggests that age (Le´vesque and Minniti,2006; Prabhu,1999),
gender (Verheul et al.,2004), education (Babalola,2009; Dees et al., 2001) and previous work experience
(Robert and Bukodi,2000) are crucial factors influencing entrepreneurial behaviors. Additionally, a large
number of empirical studies, focus on traits approach, assume that there are distinct traits such as locus of
control (Rotter 1966), need to achieve (McClelland,1961) risk taking (Carland et al.,1995); opportunity
recognition (Shane and Venkataraman,2000) that distinguish entrepreneurs from one of none. However, the
personality traits approach has been criticized owing to inadequacy in explaining the relationship between
traits and behaviors. For example, Sullivan Mort et al. (2003) note that traditional trait-based „born
entrepreneur‟ approaches are inadequate to capture the characteristics of social entrepreneurs. Similarly,
Gartner (1988) mentions the fruitlessness of traits approach and implies that researchers should focus on
„what the entrepreneur does and not who the entrepreneurs do‟. He emphasizes that researchers should be
interested in entrepreneurs‟ acts, not entrepreneurs‟ personality.
More recently, according to these critics, many researchers have advocated the competency approach
which encompasses the trait approach and clarifies the entrepreneurs‟ long term behaviors and successes
(e.g. Ahmad,2007; Chandler and Jansen,1992; Lau et al.,1999; Man and Lau 2000; Man et al.,2002; Stuart
and Lindsay,1997). Man et.al (2002:131) points out that “this approach is a response to the need for longlasting individual characteristics leading to success, rather than simply skills and abilities”. In this case,
evaluating entrepreneurs in terms of their competencies would be more appropriate to clarify their
entrepreneurial behaviors and successes. In examining required competencies for successful behaviors of
entrepreneurs, it is crucial to understand roles of entrepreneurs (Chandler and Jansen,1992). It is suggested in
the literature that entrepreneurs are engaged in three important roles such as entrepreneurial role, managerial
role and functional or technical role, and each of them requires various competencies. (Ahmad,2007;
Chandler and Jansen,1992).
In this paper, stranding on competency approach, social entrepreneurs are investigated in terms of their
entrepreneurial roles and required competencies - strategic, conceptual and opportunity recognition (Ahmad
et al.,2010)- as determinants of individual innovative behaviors. We focused on the entrepreneurial role of
social entrepreneurs, since it is the most crucial role which discerns entrepreneurs from managers.
Additionally, entrepreneurial intent, strategic thinking, recognizing unmet needs are the first and most crucial
steps in initiating social enterprise. Therefore, this study is designed to clarify the social entrepreneurship
concept in the context of social entrepreneurial competencies and social entrepreneurs‟ innovative behaviors.
Finally, in this paper, firstly, theoretical considerations concerning concept of social entrepreneurship,
besides social entrepreneurs‟ entrepreneurial competencies and innovative behaviors are reviewed.
Afterwards, research methodology of this study is presented. Following to this, analysis and findings are
presented; finally discussions, conclusions and some social implications are included.
Literature Review
The literature review here is intended to offer pertinent clarification of the key concept in social
entrepreneurship by discussing from different perspectives such as entrepreneurial competencies and
characteristics of social entrepreneurs, besides entrepreneurial competencies, innovative behaviors, and
relation between them.
Social Entrepreneurs and Social Entrepreneurship Concept
It is the frequently repeated fact that social entrepreneurship phenomena are not new. There are various
familiar examples from the past which of them share common purpose of social value. To exemplify,
Grameen bank was founded in 1983 by Muhammad Yunus to provide millions of people around the globe to
access small loans (www.grameenfoundation.org), Hull House was settled by Jane Adams in 1889 as a
center for social reform to help poor people (www.hullfamilyhome.org) and Ashoka was founded by Bill
Drayton in 1980 to provide funds for social entrepreneurs (www.ashoka.org).
On the other hand, recently, social entrepreneurship became more comprehensive with the researches on
different fields such as economy-education, and in different sectors like, non-profit, private and public
sectors (Roper and Cheney, 2005). Growing evidences have shown that social entrepreneurship may develop
in either the profit sector, such as in social purpose commercial ventures (Campbell,1998; Dees and
Anderson,2003; Emerson and Twersky,1996) and corporate entrepreneurship (Austin et al., 2004; Austin and
Reficco,2009), or in the non-profit sector (Dees,1998; Sullivan Mort et al., 2003; Thompson, 2002). Indeed,
as Austin et al. (2006) also imply, social entrepreneurship may take place in various context. From socialpurpose commercial ventures‟ aspect, an emerging social innovation is seen as a business opportunity and
turned into a commercial tool for making profits (Hockerts,2006) and besides this finally social benefit.
Additionally, in corporate social entrepreneurship, more than traditional philanthropy and corporate social
responsibility is required, corporation take much more strategic and innovative approach to accelerate
organizational transformation for better social benefits (Austin and Reficco,2009; Austin et al.,2004).
However, in non-profit sector, social entrepreneurship is often understood as networks for social
entrepreneurs and venture philanthropy that have a clear social mission such as Ashoka and Schwab
Foundation (Hockerts,2006). Thus, it is important to note that, as Thompson (2002) also implies, although
social entrepreneurship is in evidence in many profit-seeking business, the “main world of social
entrepreneur is the voluntary sector”. As it is seen at the below given Figure, social entrepreneurship‟ sector
is located at the intersection of three main sectors. Because from some aspects, social entrepreneurship
requires to collaborate with government, on the other hand it also needs to provide some contributions or
supports of private enterprises, beside this, needs to work in cooperation and coordination with voluntary
organizations.
Figure 1: Location of Social Entrepreneurship (Leadbeater,1997)
Public
Sector
Private
Sector
Voluntary
Sector
The social entrepreneurship sector
As a result, today, Dees (1998) also notes that social entrepreneurship means different things to different
people. In defining social entrepreneurship, Martin and Osberg (2007) primarily classify social ventures
according to their nature (direct, indirect) and outcome (extant or new) as a social service provision, social
activism and social entrepreneurship. In this classification social entrepreneurs have direct impact and
generate a new and sustained equilibrium. Similarly, Zahra et al. (2009) identify three types of social
entrepreneurs: Firstly, while Social Bricoleurs usually focus on discovering and addressing small-scale local
social needs, secondly, Social Constructionists typically exploit opportunities and market failures by filling
gaps to underserved clients in order to introduce reforms and innovations to the broader social system, and
finally, Social Engineers recognize systemic problems within existing social structures and address them by
introducing revolutionary change.
As it is seen from definitions, although the concept of social entrepreneurship varies due to its impact
area and its outcomes, it is essential that social entrepreneurship satisfies unmet needs providing social
benefits to disadvantaged groups a whole. Moreover, Leadbeater (1997) also emphasizes that in the short
run, while social entrepreneurs bring considerable benefits to the economy by creating jobs, generating
output or saving on public spending; in the medium run, they are crucial for the welfare of the state and in
the long run, they mobilize their ability to create and invest social capital.
On the other hand, in addressing the question of „what differs social entrepreneurship from commercial
entrepreneurship?‟, authors (e.g. Austin et al.,2006; Prabhu,1999) are agree that mission, performance
measurement and resource mobilization are different in social entrepreneurship comparing to the commercial
entrepreneurship. While creating social value in social mission is essential in social entrepreneurship, private
gains are primarily purpose of commercial entrepreneurship. Additionally, in commercial entrepreneurship,
performance is typically measured in terms of financial performance. However, performance measures for
social entrepreneurship are less standardized and more idiosyncratic to the particular organization. Moreover,
human and financial resource mobilization is different in social and commercial entrepreneurship. Social
entrepreneurs often rely heavily upon a range of funding sources including individual contributions,
foundation grants, member dues, user fees, and government payments (Austin et al., 2006). Moreover, social
entrepreneurial organizations face competition largely for funds, people and other resources; however an
economic entrepreneurial organizations usually face competition primarily for resources and as a raw
materials and at lesser degree for suppliers of similar or substitute products or services (Prabhu,1999).
To better understand, Sullivan Mort et al. (2003) conceptualized the social entrepreneurship as a
multidimensional construct reflecting the key operational characteristics of nonprofit sector that consist of
four dimension: entrepreneurially virtuous to create better social value; judgment capacity to coherent unity
of purpose and action in the face of complexity; social opportunity recognition to create a better social value;
risk tolerance, proactiveness and innovativeness. Premising on the complex nature of social
entrepreneurship, not a single dimensional conceptualism, their model clarifies various process of social
entrepreneurship that provides discerning social entrepreneurship from commercial entrepreneurship more
clearly.
Because of their critical role in the social entrepreneurship process, some scholars focused on social
entrepreneurs and consider social entrepreneurship process in individual level (Kümbül Güler,2008;
Leadbeater,1997; Plater and Zyberk,2005; Prabhu,1999; Thompson et al.,2000; Thompson,2002). In
explaining
„What does it take to be a social entrepreneur? Dees (1998:4) emphasizes that social
entrepreneurs play the role of change agents in the social sector, by:
• Adopting a mission to create and sustain social value (not just private value),
• Recognizing and relentlessly pursuing new opportunities to serve that mission,
• Engaging in a process of continuous innovation, adaptation, and learning,
• Acting boldly without being limited by resources currently in hand,
• Exhibiting a heightened sense of accountability to the constituencies served and for the outcomes
created.
Additionally, Leadbeater (1997) draws attention to 3 characteristics of social entrepreneurs that is critical
to be social entrepreneur: entrepreneurial, innovative and transformatory. To him, social entrepreneurs use
under-utilized, discarded resources, create new services, products, and new ways of dealing with problems,
additionally they transform the institutions and their environment. Plater and Zyberk (2005) determine 12
characteristics of social entrepreneurs in his biographic case studies, these characteristics are resistance to
formal education, restlessness, strong influence, spiritual identity, experience as an outsider, pivotal life
moments, entrepreneurial approach to problem solving, pro-risk opportunistic tendency, self determined
goals, strong support network and self-confidence. Similarly, in a very thought-provoking article, Thompson
(2002), in his article analyzing what social entrepreneurs do and achieve at the wide scope of their world by
case studies, defines four requirements of true social entrepreneurs: -envisioning refers to clarifying a need,
gap and opportunity; -engaging refers to engaging the opportunity with a mind to doing something about it; enabling refers to ensuring something happens by acquiring the necessary resources, such as people and
money; -enacting refers to championing and leading the project to a satisfactory conclusion. He considers
social entrepreneurs as one species in the genius entrepreneur and implies importance of providing all these
requirements for successful social entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurial Competencies of Social Entrepreneurs
In the literature entrepreneurial competencies are defined as the total ability of the entrepreneur
encompassing personality traits and skills to perform a job role successfully (Boyatzis,1982; Man et al.,
2002). In more specifically, the definition of Boyatzis (1982) consists of five types of competencies
characteristics including motives, traits, self-concept, knowledge and skills. Therefore, that is to say,
competencies include various aspects of individuals and in this regard provide clear assessment about what
individual can do and how individual reflects it to their behaviors that would be primer determinant of the
success. Similarly, Mitchelmore and Rowley (2010) also points out, competency is a class of things that can
be used to characterize individuals and their behaviors.
General trend of literature also (e.g. Ahmad,2007; Baum et. al.,2001; Man and Lau 2000) shows that
entrepreneurs‟ competencies are vital for the success of businesses. Furthermore, not only for the
commercial entrepreneurs but also social entrepreneurs who are “special breed of entrepreneur”
(Dees,1998:6), are also need to have various competencies for creating the optimum value of social
enterprises. Essentially, entrepreneurs‟ competencies in various areas would affect success of initiation,
management and sustainability of social enterprise process. Because, social entrepreneurs define problems
and causes underlying them, observe social structure in terms of economic, cultural etc., think strategically to
draw attention of society and government to these problems in various ways such as using media for required
resources, and establish linkage among disadvantaged groups, volunteers and others.
It is also notified that some authors (e.g. Chandler and Jansen 1992; Georgellis et. al., 2000; Martin and
Staines,1994; McGee and Peterson,2000; Snell and Lau,1994; Thompson et.al, 1997; Winterton,2002)
identified competency areas from various aspects. For example, Chandler and Jansen (1992) identify five
competency areas such as ability to recognize opportunities, political, competency drive to see venture
through to fruition, human/conceptual competency, and technical competency. Martin and Staines (1994)
consider two important competencies: personal competency, managerial and technical competency.
Additionally, Winterton (2002) evaluates cognitive competence which requires to tacit informal knowledge,
as well functional and personal competency. However, that is to say, Ahmad (2007:28) notes that Man‟s
(2001) model is the most comprehensive one, in which including eight competency areas such as
opportunity, relationship, conceptual, organizing and leading, strategic, commitment, learning, and personal
strength.
Additionally, in the work of Ahmad et al. (2010) entrepreneurial competencies are integrated various
roles of entrepreneurs including entrepreneurial, managerial and technical/functional which are mentioned by
Chandler and Jansen (1992). To Ahmad et al.‟s (2010) work each role taken by entrepreneur requires various
competencies to achieve the organization‟s goals. For example, entrepreneurial role is required to strategic,
opportunity and conceptual competencies. The managerial role of entrepreneur is required for organizing and
relationship competencies which is relevant to organizing resources including people, money, technology,
facilities, equipments, materials and supplies information and technology to achieve organizational goal.
Finally to accomplish functional/technical role which is relevant to entrepreneurs‟ knowledge on specific
field, entrepreneurs‟ technical competency is required.
In this study we focus on social entrepreneurs‟ entrepreneurial role due to its particular position in terms
of allocating resources to create social value. Therefore, at first, it is necessary to clarify entrepreneurial role
in context of its building stones such as conceptual, opportunity recognition and strategic competency
(Ahmad,2010).
When competencies relevant to entrepreneurial role is analyzed deeply, conceptual competency refers to
“different conceptual abilities which are reflected in the behaviors of entrepreneurs, such as decision skills,
absorbing and understanding complex information, risk taking, and innovativeness”(Man et al.,2002:132).
Similarly, Chandler and Jansen (1992:226) identify conceptual competency as “mental ability to coordinate
all of the organization‟s interests and activities”. In line with this, conceptual competency allows
entrepreneurs to do things in different ways that would create value (Thompson et al., 1997). Essentially,
social entrepreneurs establish relationships between events, social problems, issues and problem solving
ways through their mental ability. At this point, being high level educated and/or experienced is important to
capture and analyze relationships, to find where the problem stem from, to provide solutions to complex
problems and issues.
As mentioned before, entrepreneurial role which is premised in this paper, requires conceptual
competencies. Regarding to conceptual competency, social entrepreneurs make effective decisions to provide
service and support for disadvantaged groups and establish all of social activities on these decisions. At this
point, it is fair to say that these decisions should be consistent, objective and purpose oriented in determining
field of activity, and allocating, organizing, and evaluating resources. Success of these activities is related to
entrepreneurs‟ decision-making ability. For example, Prof. Dr. Mustafa Sarı, who is the President of
Association of Nature Observers, foreseen that the yellow pearl mullet fishes are in danger of extinction
which is only found in lake of Van, and in this context he established Association of Nature Observers as the
social enterprise for the generation of this type of fish. As a result of this decision and activities, in this
parallel he was chosen the “Entrepreneur of the Year” by Ashoka Foundation in 2007.
In dealing with social problems, social entrepreneurs should be ambitious to improve new ideas providing
huge changes, and to take risk in every step of social enterprise that is relevant to conceptual competency of
social entrepreneur. It is noteworthy example in understanding risk groups undertaken by social
entrepreneurs that interruption of support and services to an individual with HIV would lead them to
undesirable situations (Koc, 2009). In this case, caution however needs to be taken by social entrepreneurs
that they should breast risks occurring in every step of social entrepreneurship process from deciding types
of enterprise, bringing resources together to ensure sustainability.
On the other hand, opportunity competencies are relevant to “recognizing and developing market
opportunities through various means” (Man et al.,2002:132). Entrepreneurs have the ability to seek, develop,
and assess high quality opportunities that are available in the market (de Koning,2003). Their ability in
accessing valuable resources for organization is a reflection of recognizing opportunities (Kirzner,1973). In
this framework, while commercial entrepreneurs primarily focus on economic returns; social entrepreneurs
seek opportunity for social returns (Austin et al.,2006). Accordingly, social entrepreneurs see what the others
do not see with the motive of social awareness, create new opportunities, and improve new systems. They
observe, analyze and then explore social issues that are related to disadvantaged groups. Additionally, they
look for opportunities for funds; for example, they follow allocated resources of various fund agencies,
evaluate the incentives provided by public administrations, and for this aim motivate public administration.
In this regard, it can be said that Universal Giving is a significant example in explaining opportunity
competencies. Universal Giving is a web-based marketplace that helps people give and volunteer with the
top-performing, vetted projects all over the world and aims to attract people to donate more. For this purpose
Universal Giving has been profiled on CBS and FOX Business Network, and has also been featured in
BusinessWeek, WomenEntrepreneur.com, Oprah.com, NBC News, Christian Science Monitor, New York
Times, Financial Times, CNNMoney.com and Change.org. (www.universalgiving.org). Through various
channels, Universal Giving tries to attract more people‟ attention for more donation.
Lastly, strategic competencies are related to “setting, evaluating and implementing the strategies of the
organization (Man et al.,2002:132)”. Social entrepreneurs do strategic planning, policy making, hire people
and provide them mentorship (Prabhu 1999). It is expected from social entrepreneurs to design and
implement strategies for arousing awareness in the community, as well for sustaining supports of interest
groups. For example, they should monitor strategies for motivating public administration to looking for
solutions to social problems. Additionally, collaborating with different groups such as media to reach large
segments of society requires strategic competency, since it is related to know how to draw attention of
media.
For example, Arzum Meleksoy, who is a social entrepreneur chosen successful by Ashoka FoundationTurkey, provides internet platform and community network to individuals and businesses to work together to
support the most innovative social organizations. Her initial strategy was to direct online shoppers through
her internet portal in a way that online shoppers donate a small percentage of their shopping bill to an
organization of their choice. She contacted large online shopping websites such as Amazon in the United
States, Franc in France, and an e-store in Turkey to sign affiliation agreements that allow her to put links to
their websites from her website. She then developed an e-card fundraising strategy. E-cards are electronic
gift cards that can be sent through email much like a thank-you or birthday card is sent through postal mail.
Arzum worked with free designers and well-known artists to design a variety of e-cards for various
occasions. Then, she approached companies in Turkey to sponsor the e-cards. In exchange for a small logo
on the e-card, each company (for example, British Petroleum) would donate money to the Turkish citizen
organizations of the e-card sender‟s choice. Since her e-card strategy was launched in 2004, half-dozen large
businesses have agreed to sponsor e-cards, including British Petroleum, Yapı Kredi Bank, and Sodexho.
Citizen organizations in Turkey realize the value of being listed on her website and have pushed to be
included, assuming they fit Arzum‟s strict criteria as nonpartisan, nonreligious, and transparent. Today,
many organizations that have a history of not being cooperative find themselves under the same umbrella on
Alisbagis.com (www.ashoka.org).
Finally, it can be emphasized that social entrepreneurs‟ entrepreneurial competencies which are
mentioned above are critical in terms of initiation and sustainability of social enterprise.
Innovative Behaviors of Social Entrepreneurs
Individual innovative behaviors are defined as the intentional behavior of an individual to create, introduce
and/or apply new ideas, products, processes, and procedures to his or her work role, unit, or organization
(West and Farr,1989). In this context, it should be implied that innovative behaviors of entrepreneurs are
crucial determinant of successful enterprises such that the main element in Schumpeter‟s (1934)
entrepreneurship definition is also innovation. To him, entrepreneurs should present to market a new system,
product, process or an original composition of them. In his definition, he implies particularly the commercial
entrepreneurial organizations which innovate primarily in the product/market and operations areas. Similarly
to this, that is to say social entrepreneurial organizations may primarily innovate in developing new and more
effective social change strategies, and strategies to change their environment (Prabhu,1999). Indeed,
motivations of social entrepreneurs to innovate are different than commercial entrepreneurs; this difference is
derived from various factors including primarily their mission as discussed before.
Social entrepreneurs approach problems from different perspectives, try to find new ways, and to create
alternative solutions to contribute solving social problems, and so they are known as “change makers”
(Sharir and Lerner,2006). Consequently their innovative behaviors which are premised on definitions of
social entrepreneurs are essential in social entrepreneurship process. For example, Dees (1998:5) mentions
that “social entrepreneurs look for innovative ways to assure that their ventures will have access to resources
as long as they are creating social value”. Additionally, Mair and Martin (2006) view social entrepreneurship
as a process that catalyzes social change and addresses important social needs in a way and accordingly, they
focus on innovative behaviors for social objectives. Furthermore, Austin et al. (2006) also imply
“innovativeness and social value” in the definition of social entrepreneurship. Similarly, the Skoll
Foundation, funding organization to social entrepreneurs, identifies social entrepreneurs as society‟s change
agents: pioneers of innovation that beneﬁt humanity (www.skollfoundation.org). Ashoka Foundation,
premier organization that invests in social entrepreneurs, defines social entrepreneurs as individuals with
innovative solutions to society‟s most pressing social problems (www.ashoka.org). It is also observed in all
these examples that social entrepreneurs‟ innovating to create social value is essential in social
entrepreneurship process.
Considering measures of individual innovative behavior, while some researchers used one-dimensional
(e.g. Basu and Green,1997; Scott and Bruce,1994; Scott and Bruce,1998; Janssen,2000; Kleysen and
Street,2001), some of them developed and used multi-dimensional measures (e.g. Krause 2004; Dorenbosch
et al.,2005). For example, Krause‟s (2004) measure has two dimensions: the generation and testing of ideas,
and implementation.. Dorenbosch et al.‟s (2005) measure includes two dimensions: creativity oriented and
implementation oriented behavior.
Similarly, Kleysen and Street (2001) categorize five behaviors associated with individual innovation in
line with the literature: opportunity exploration, generativity, formative investigation, championing, and
application. However, they could not prove multi-dimensional construct of measure due to inadequate
questioning and consequently in single dimensional construct 14 items provided the best fit. That is to say,
their measure is most comprehensive one according to other one-dimensional measures, since it has
constructed and hypothesized to be a multidimensional construct.
Considering more detailed to behaviors associated with individual innovation may shed light on the
capturing innovative behavior. Kleysen and Street‟s (2001) conceptualized innovative behaviors in line with
the literature. Opportunity exploration as a first factor relate to innovative behaviors refers to “metaphor of
travelling extensively through innovation opportunities in order to learn or discover more about them”. - The
second factor, generativity refers to “behaviors directed at generating beneficial change for the purpose of
growing organizations, their people, products, processes, and services”. –The third factor, formative
investigation is concerned with giving form to and fleshing out ideas, solutions, and opinions and trying
them out through investigation”. - The fourth factor relevant to innovative behavior is “championing which
includes mobilizing resources, persuading and influencing, publishing and negotiating, challenging and risk
taking”. -The five factor application “involves working at making innovations a regular part of business as
usual” (Kleysen and Street,2001).
Finally it can be supposed that social entrepreneurs try to create and/or find urgent and also effective
solutions for chronic social inequalities or problems through their own innovative behaviors.
The Relation between Entrepreneurial Competencies and Innovative Behaviors
Because of vitally importance of innovation in entrepreneurship process, antecedents of innovative behaviors
have been focus of some studies. For example, in individual level, Shalley and Gibson (2004) imply the
importance of education and having specific knowledge for acquiring various skills that would encourage
individuals to be curious about problems, options or ways of doing their work, accordingly acting
innovatively. Similarly, in a very thought –provoking article, Seibert et al. (2001) imply the role of
proactiveness in innovative behaviors. Additionally, individual‟s problem-solving style which refers to
individuals‟ cognitive style that is relevant to conceptual competency (Man et al.,2002) is positively related
to individual innovative behaviors (Scott and Bruce,1994;1998).
Figure 2: Research Model
Entrepreneurial Role
Entrepreneurs’ Competencies
-strategic
-opportunity
-conceptual
Success of Social
Ventures
Entrepreneurs’ Innovative
Behavior
Addressing these concerns, model also points out that social entrepreneurs‟ innovative behaviors would
be effective in success of enterprises, is closely relate to entrepreneurial competencies. Because as it
mentioned in previous sections that knowledge, ability and experience of social entrepreneurs that are in
frame of competencies, enable them to initiate and manage social enterprises. Simply, entrepreneurs aware of
a need that is not being met, and improve some ideas about how it could be met in line with their
competencies. At this point entrepreneurs‟ innovative behaviors, in other words, improving new ideas and
pursuing new ways to contribute in solving problems and issues form basis of this process.
As Schumpeter (1934) also implies for commercial entrepreneurs, there is closed relationship between
entrepreneurship and innovation. Social entrepreneurs who aims to battle for social problems, also should
apply innovation as a vital tool. Accordingly, it is fair to say that there is much closed relation between social
entrepreneurship (in particular entrepreneurial competencies) and social innovativeness (innovative
behaviors).
Methodology
Procedure and participants: Building on the theoretical constructs, we use measures to capture
entrepreneurial competencies, innovative behaviors and demographical characteristics of social
entrepreneurs. Sample set of this study consists of social entrepreneurs (N=25) who are fellows of Ashoka
Foundation-Turkey. Questionnaires were sent to participants via web based survey method, and then
conducted with them by phone. Additionally, the social entrepreneurs are reminded by phone and e-mails to
complete questionnaires after sent. However, we can only reach 15 social entrepreneurs and data was
collected from 8 participants of these 15 social entrepreneurs to analyze.
If we look at the demographic characteristics of participants, half of them are female, and all social
entrepreneurs held at least high school degree and approximately two third of them held bachelor degree. It
is likely to say that although none of them have received formal entrepreneurship education, majority of
them (%75) is university-trained/graduate. It is may be evidence that being well-educated related to interest
areas would lead individuals to be successful in their career, and accordingly to be successful social
entrepreneurs (Dees et al.,2001; Koc,2009). It is interesting to note that there are social entrepreneurs in the
majority of participants‟ family (%63), and it shows that having someone with experienced in social
entrepreneurship fields in family affects individuals positively to become a social entrepreneur. Additionally,
most participants (%88) carry out also other social initiatives. Half of social entrepreneurs started up their
enterprise between the ages of 21-30, and %25 of them started up enterprise under the age of 20. It may
provide evidence to Prabhu‟s (1999) statement. He mentions that younger people may be more willing than
middle-aged people to risk a few years for building a social venture, because they face greater risk in terms
of career growth. Moreover, half of participants operate in national field, and most of social entrepreneurs
(%75) have member more than 100.
Measures and instruments: The questionnaire form can be summarized under three modules, which are:
entrepreneurial competencies, individual innovative behavior and demographic characteristics questions.
Entrepreneurial competencies:To capture entrepreneurial competencies of social entrepreneurs, we
adapted the Ahmad‟s (2007) entrepreneurial competency questionnaire which is also adapted from the works
of Chandler and Jansen (1992) and Man and Lau (2000). However for this research, we did not use all
entrepreneurial competencies, only evaluated conceptual, opportunity and strategic competencies which
refers to entrepreneurial role (Ahmad, 2010). We adapted 30 items of which 10 items represent conceptual, 7
items opportunity competencies and 13 items strategic competencies. Respondents indicate the importance of
the items on a 5-point Likert scale.
Individual innovative behaviors: To measure individual innovative behaviors of social entrepreneurs we
adapted Kleysen and Street‟s individual innovative behaviors scale (2001). Respondents indicate the
importance of the items on a 5-point Likert scale. The 1-5 Likert scale questions in the questionnaire aim to
easily assemble qualitative information concerning entrepreneurial competencies, as well as innovative
behaviors.
Demographical Characteristics: Lastly, there are also open-ended questions in order to gather
knowledge about their educational background and impact area, the age that they started to social enterprises,
support of family for their initiating their enterprises and so on.
Analyses and Findings: We use spearman correlation analysis to evaluate relationship between
entrepreneurial competencies and individual innovative behavior. Because, it is known fact that spearman
correlation coefficient is appropriate when there are two variables per object, both of which are measured on
an ordinal scale and when the number of sample set is under 30 (Eymen,2007; Churchill,1996 cited from
Nunnaly,1998).
Table 1: Spearman Correlation Coefficient
Spearman's rho
inn_beh
Ent_Comp
inn_beh
Ent_Comp
Correlation Coefficient
1,000
,970**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.
,000
N
8
8
Correlation Coefficient
,970**
1,000
Sig. (2-tailed)
,000
.
N
8
8
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
At the Table 1, the correlation coefficient (0, 97) shows that there is high rated linear and positive
correlation between entrepreneurial competencies and individual innovative behaviors.
Discussion and Conclusion
Our knowledge of social entrepreneurs is inadequate, as Prabhu (1999) also states. We attempted to evaluate
role of individuals in social entrepreneurship process rather than a holistic assessment of this process.
Additionally it can be asserted that social entrepreneurs have been examined generally through/by some case
studies (e.g. Alvord et al., 2004; Spear, 2006; Thompson, 2002; Weerawardena and Sullivan Mort, 2006).
Accordingly, it is expected that this research will contribute to the social entrepreneurship literature with
empirical findings. However, because of difficulties in contacting with social entrepreneurs, we only could
be in touch with 8 of them that show weakness of analysis of this study. Accordingly, while the view of
social entrepreneurs put forward in this paper is far from complete in explaining entrepreneurial
competencies and innovative behaviors due to inadequacy of data, we see it as an important step to enhance
our theoretical understanding of the phenomenon of social entrepreneurs‟ competencies and individual
innovative behaviors and facilitate/contribute future research.
With most empirical study, our study has a number of limitations. Firstly, for this study we handled
social entrepreneurs who are fellows of Ashoka Foundation-Turkey. For further studies, evaluating all social
entrepreneurs who are chosen successful and funded by various organizations such as Ashoka, Schwab and
Skoll Foundations would help us to conclude more reliable assessment of their characteristics, competencies,
motivations, and behaviors. Secondly, for this study, entrepreneurial competencies which are most relevant
to entrepreneurial role are taken into account as a determinant of innovative behaviors. However, considering
various competencies as mentioned in the literature such as opportunity, relationship, conceptual, organizing,
strategic, commitment, learning, personal strength (Man and Lau,2000) which are requirement of other roles
of entrepreneurs would give us more clear information about their behaviors. Additionally, it is critical to
note that, although correlation between two variables is apparent, it does not explain causation between
variables (Zikmund, 1991). Future studies may present more information about causations and the way of
this relation.
Limitations notwithstanding, our findings suggest that there is significant relationship between
entrepreneurial competencies and innovative behaviors. In this paper, it is expected to draw considerable
interest of both academicians and practitioners to importance of social entrepreneurs whose purpose is to
create social value and benefits for sustainability of a better life for all existences.
It is obviously known fact that innovation is the requirement to overcome for shortcomings of the extant
social systems which are pursued/observed by social entrepreneurs. In this case, social entrepreneurs‟
incremental innovation such as finding new ways to solving social problems, or radical innovation such as
transforming extant system in line with their social mission is essential in social entrepreneurship process.
Additionally, that is to say, “creating social value” and “innovation” are the two premised notion in the
definitions of social entrepreneurs, since social entrepreneurs innovate for social benefits and beside this
transform social systems. At this point, it is fair to say that social entrepreneurs would be eager to innovate in
the degree of their competencies. Because social entrepreneurs are continuously on the way of looking for
new solutions to challenge social problems and/or paradoxes that require different approaches and abilities.
Finally in any society peoples do not wait for all solutions from government. In case of inadequacy of
governmental facilities, they should at first organize your forces, abilities and then as a whole they can look
for sustainable solutions for social problems.
Social Implications
It is critical to remark that entrepreneurial competencies which are premised in this paper and also antecedent
of being social entrepreneur, are changeable and learnable (Man et al., 2002), and can be developed through
training programs, education (Bird,1995, Chandler and Jansen 1992, Wallace, 1998). In this case, formal
and informal education would be crucial to improve these competencies that would enable more people to
establish organizations as well as social ones. At this point, it is noteworthy that formal educations in
educational institution relevant to social entrepreneurship would be beneficial to gain social awareness of
individuals. Additionally, individuals would be more motivated and competent in establishing and managing
social enterprises through training programs, since education provides individuals achievement in their
entrepreneurial innovative activities (Babalola,2009). In slightly different words, education enhance them to
be more creative, approach issues more comprehensively and encourage them to be innovating more for
social problems. Simply, social entrepreneurs are crucial for betterment of our lives, as Thompson
(2002:429) implies that, “more social entrepreneurs imply persuading more people to believe they can
champion an initiative and to do something about it”.
References
Ahmad, N. H. (2007). A Cross cultural study of entrepreneurial competencies and entrepreneurial success in SMEs in
Australia and Malaysia, PhD dissertation, The University of Adelaide, Australia.
Ahmad, N. H., Halim, H. A. and Zainal, S. R. M. (2010). “Is entrepreneurial competency the silver bullet for SME
success in a developing?”, International Business Management, Vol.4, No.2, pp.67-75.
Alvord, Sarah H., Brown, L. D. and Christine W. Letts. (2004). “Social entrepreneurship and societal transformation:
An exploratory study”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol.40, No.3, pp.260-282.
Austin, J.E., Leonard, H., Reficco, E. and Wei-Skillern, J. (2004). “Corporate social entrepreneurship: A new vision of
CSR”, working paper, no. 05-021, Harvard Business School, Boston.
Austin, J. and Reficco, E. (2009). “Corporate social entrepreneurship”, working paper, no. 09-101, Harvard Business
School, Boston.
Austin, J., Stevenson, H. and Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). “Social and commercial entrepreneurship: same, different, or
both?”, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 30, No.1 22.
Babalola, S. S. (2009). “Woman entrepreneurial innovative behavior: The role of psychological capital”, International
Journal of Business and Management, Vol.4, No.11, pp.184-192.
Basu, R. and Green, S. G. (1997). “Leader-member exchange and transformational leadership: An empirical
examination of innovative behaviors in leader-member dyads”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol.27,
No.6, pp. 477-499.
Baum, J. R., Locke, E. A. and Smith, K. G. (2001). “Multidimensional model of venture growth”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol.44, No.2, pp. 292-303.
Bird, B. (1995). “Toward a theory of entrepreneurial competency”, in.Katz, J..A. and Brockhaus, R.H. (Ed.), Advances
in entrepreneurship, firm emergence, and growth, Connecticut: Jai Press Inc, Greenwich, Vol.2, pp.51-72.
Boyatzis, R.E. (1982). The Competent Manager: A Model for Effective Performance. Wiley, New York.
Bygrave, W. and Minniti, M. (2000). “The social dynamics of entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, Vol.24, No.3, pp.25-36.
Carland, J. W., III, Carland, J. W., Carland, J. A. and Pearce, J. W. (1995). “Risk taking propensity among
entrepreneurs, small business owners, and managers”, Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 7, No.l,
pp.15-23.
Certo, S. T. and Miller, T. (2008). “Social entrepreneurship: key issues and concepts”, Business Horizons, Vol.51, pp.
267-271.
Campbell, S. (1998). “Social Entrepreneurship: How to Develop New Socialpurpose Business Ventures”, Health Care
Strategic Management, Vol.16, No.5, pp.1718.
Chandler, G. N. and Jansen, E. (1992). “The founder‟s self-assessed competence and venture performance”, Journal of
Business Venturing, Vol.7, No.3, pp.223-236.
Chell, E. (1986). “The entrepreneurial personality: A review and some theoretical developments”, in Curram, J.,
Stanworth, J. and Watking, D. (Ed.), The survival of the small firm. The economics of survival and
entrepreneurship, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Vol. 1, pp. 102-119.
Churchill, G. (1996). Basic Marketing Research, The Drydendress, Florida.
Dees, J. G. (1998). “The meaning of social entrepreneurship‟‟, Stanford University: Draft Report for the Kauffman
Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership, 6 pp, available at http://www.caseatduke.org/documents/dees_sedef.pdf,
(accessed 17 June 2010).
Dees, G., Emerson, J. and Economy, P. (2001). Enterprising Nonprofit: A Toolkit for Social Entrepreneurs. John Wiley
ve Sons, Inc. New York.
Dees, J. G. and Anderson, B. B. (2003). “For-profit social ventures”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship
Education, Vol.2, No.1, pp.1-13.
de Koning, A. (2003). “Opportunity development: A socio-cognitive perspective”, In. Katz, J. A. and Shepherd, D. A.
(Ed.), Cognitive approaches to entrepreneurship research: Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence, and
growth, Jai Press Inc., Boulder, USA, Vol.6, pp.265-314.
Dorenbosch, L., van Engen, M. and Verhagen, M. (2005). “On-the-job innovation: The impact of job design and human
resource management through production ownership”, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol.14, No.2, pp.
129-141.
Emerson, J., & Twersky, F. (1996). New social entrepreneurs: The success, challenge, and lessons of non-proﬁt
enterprise creation, Roberts Foundation, San Francisco
Eymen, U. E. (2007). “Istatistik merkezi”, available at www. Istatistik merkezi.com. (accessed 2 August 2010).
Gartner, W. (1988). “Who is an Entrepreneur? is the Wrong Question”, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, Vol.13,
No.4, pp.47–68.
Georgellis, Y., Joyce, P. and Woods, A. (2000). “Entrepreneurial action, innovation, and business performance: The
small independent business”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol.7, No.1, pp.7-17.
Hockerts, K. (2006). “Entrepreneurial Opportunity in Social Purpose Business Ventures”, in Mair, J., Robinson, J. and
Hockerts, K. Social Entrepreneurship, Palgrave MacMillan, New York, pp.142-154.
Janssen, O. (2000), “Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness, and innovative work behavior”, Journal of
Occupational and organizational psychology, Vol.73, No.3, pp. 287-302.
Kelly, R. F. and Street, C. T. (2001). “Toward a multi-dimensional measure of individual innovative behavior”, Journal
of Intellectual Capital, Vol.2, No.3, pp.284-296.
Kirzner, I. M. (1973). Competition and entrepreneurship, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Koc, O. (2009). “Etkin bir sosyal girişim yapısal analizi: Sosyal girişim liderlerinin genel nitelikleri neler olmalıdır?”,
paper presented at the VI. International NGO‟s Conference, 23-25 October, Pozitif press, Çanakkale, Türkiye,
pp.37-49.
Krause, D.E. (2004). “Influence-based leadership as a determinant of the inclination to innovate and of innovationrelated behaviors: An empirical investigation”, LeadershipQuarterly, Vol.15, No.1, pp.79-102.
Kümbül Güler, B. (2008). Sosyal Girişimciliği Etkileyen Faktörlerin Analizi, PhD dissertation, Dokuz Eylül University,
Turkey.
Lau, T., Chan, K.F. and Man, T.W.Y. (1999). “The competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises; A
conceptualization with focus on entrepreneurial competencies”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 17, No. 2,
pp. 123-42.
Leadbetter, C. (1997). The rise of the social entrepreneur, Demos, London.
Le´vesque, M. and Minniti, M. (2006). “The effect of aging on entrepreneurial behavior”, Journal of Business
Venturing, Vol.21, pp.177-194.
Man, T.W. and Lau, T. (2000), “Entrepreneurial competencies of small business owner/managers in the Hong Kong
services sector: a qualitative analysis”, Journal of Enterprising Culture, Vol.8 No.3, pp. 235-254.
Man, T., 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.
Mair, J. and Martin, I. (2006). “Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight”,
Journal of World Business, Vol.41, pp.36–44.
Martin R. L. and Osberg, S. (2007). “Social entrepreneurship: the case for deﬁnition”, Stanford Social Innovation
Review Spring, Vol.5, No.2, pp.29-39.
Martin, G. and Staines, H. (1994). “Managerial competences in small firms”, Journal of Management Development,
Vol.13, No.7, pp.23-34.
McClelland, D. C. (1961). The Achieving Society, Van Nostrand, New York.
McGee, J. E. and Peterson, M. (2000). “Toward the development of measures of distinctive competencies among small
independent retailers”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol.38, No.2, pp.19-33.
Mitchelmore, S. and Rowley, J. (2010). “Entrepreneurial competencies: A literature review and development agenda”,
International Journal of Entrepreneurial behavior & Research, Vol.18, No.2, pp.92-111.
Mueller, S. L. and Thomas, A. S. (2000). “Culture and entrepreneurial potential: A nine country study of locus of
control”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol.16, No.1, pp.51-75.
Peredo, A. M. and McLean, M. (2006). “Social entrepreneurship: A critical review of the concept”, Journal of World
Business, Vol.41, pp.56-65.
Plater-Zyberk, H. (2005), “Working from the heart: an exploration of what propels 12 quality social entrepreneurs”.
UnLtd, available at http://www1.gsb.columbia.edu/mygsb/faculty/research pubfiles/2064/HPZ_UnLtd_Report
/ _circulated.pdf (accessed 08 August 2010).
Prabhu, G. N. (1999). “Social entrepreneurial leadership”, Career development International, Vol.4, No.3, pp.140-145.
Robert, P. and Bukodi, E. (2000). Who Are the Entrepreneurs and Where Do They Come From? Transition to SelfEmployment Before, Under and After Communism in Hungary. International Review of Sociology, Vol.10,
No.1, pp.147-171.
Roper, J. and Cheney, G. (2005). “Leadership, learning and human resource management: The means of social
entrepreneurship today”, Corporate Governance, Vol.5, No.3, pp. 95-104.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). “Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement”, Psychological
Monographs, Vol.80, No.1, pp.1-28.
Schumpeter, J.A., (1934). The Theory of Economic Development. An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and
the Business Cycle, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Scott, S.G. and Bruce, R. A. (1994). “Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in
the workplace”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol.37, No.3, pp. 580-607.
Scott, S. G. and Bruce, R. A. (1998). “Following the leader in R&D: The joint effect of subordinate problem-solving
style and leader-member relations on innovative behavior”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,
Vol.45, No.1, pp.3-10.
Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L. And Crant, J. M. (2001). “What do proactive people do? A longitudinal model linking
proactive personality and career success”, Personal Psychology, Vol.54, pp. 845-874.
Shalley, C.E. and L.L. Gilson (2004), “What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual factors that can
foster or hinder creativity”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol.15, pp.33-54.
Shane, S. And Venkatraman, S. (2000). “The promise of entrepreneurship as a ﬁeld of research”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol..25, No.1, pp. 217-226.
Sharir, M. and Lerner, M. (2006). “Gauging the Success of Social Ventures Initiated by Individual Social
Entrepreneurs”, Journal of World Business. Vol.41: 6-20.
Snell, R. and Lau, A. (1994). “Exploring local competence salient for expanding small business”, Journal of
Management Development, Vol.13, No.4, pp.4-15.
Sullivan Mort, G., Weerawardena, J. and Carnegie, K. (2003). “Social entrepreneurship: Towards conceptualization”,
International Journal of Nonproﬁt and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol.8, No.1, pp. 76–89.
Spear, R. (2006). “Social Entrepreneurship: A Different Model?”, International Journal of Social Economics, Vol.33,
No.5/6, pp. 399-410.
Stuart, R. and Lindsay, P. (1997) “Beyond the frame of management competenc(i)es: towards a contextually embedded
framework of managerial competence in organizations”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 21, No.
1, pp. 26-34.
Thompson, J. L. (2002). “The world of the social entrepreneur”, International Journal of Public Sector Management,
Vol.15, No.5, pp. 412–431.
Thompson, J. L., Alvy, G. and Lees, A. (2000). “Social entrepreneurship: A new look at the people and the
potential”, Management Decision, Vol.38, pp.328–338.
Thompson, J. E., Stuart, R. and Lindsay, P. R. (1997). “The competence of top team member: A framework for
successful performance”, Team Performance Management, Vol.3, No.2, pp.57-75.
Verheul, I., Stel, A. and Thurik, R. (2004). “Explaining Female and Male Entrepreneurship Across 29 Countries”,
SCALES –paper (working paper), No.N200403, Max Planck Institute Zoetermeer, May.
Wallace, J. (1998), “The impact of small business courses on competencies”, paper presented at the 22nd National
Small Business Consulting Conference, 4-7 February, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA, available at http://www.
sbaer.uca.edu/research/sbida/1998/pdf/13.pdf (accessed 25 August 2010).
Weerawardena, J. and Sullivan Mort, G. (2006). “Investigating Social Entrepreneurship: A Multidimensional Model”,
Journal of World Business, Vol.41, No.1, pp.21-35.
West, M. and Farr, J. (1989). “Innovation at work: Psychological perspectives”, Social Behaviour, Vol.4, pp.15-30.
Winterton, J. (2002). “Entrepreneurship: Towards a competence framework for developing SME Managers”, Paper
presented at
the USASBE
Conference,
17-20 January,
Reno,
Nevada,
available at
http://usasbe.org/knowledge/proceedings/proceedingsDocs/USASBE2002proceedings-21.pdf, (accessed 10
August 2010).
Zahra, S., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum,, D. O. and Shulman, J. M. (2009). “A typology of social entrepreneurs: Motives,
search processes and ethical challenges”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol.24, pp.519-532.
Zikmund, W.G. (1991). Business research methods, Third edition, The Dryden Press.
Internet Sources
http://www.ashoka.org.com (accessed on 12 July 2010).
http://www.skollfoundation.org (accessed on 12 July 2010)
http://www.grameenfoundation.org/who-we-are (accessed on 09 August 2010)
http://www.hullfamilyhome.org (accessed on 18 August 2010).
http://www.universalgiving.org (accessed on13 August 2010).
Biographical Note:
Assist. Prof. Dr. Oktay Koç has received his BA in Management and Organization from Security and Sciences Faculty,
completed his master degree at Kocaeli University, Department of Management and Organization in 1999 with a thesis
on „Transformational leadership concept and its applicability at the level of provincial police chiefs‟. He has received
his PhD degree at Kocaeli University, Department of Management and Organization in 2006 with a thesis on „The role
of intellectual leadership on managing interior conflicts in the information society organization‟. Contact information:
Çanakkale Onsekizmart University Biga Faculty of Economics and Business Sciences, Business Administration
Department Biga, Çanakkale TURKEY oktaykocalioglu@gmail.com.
Res. Assist. Çağla Yavuz has received his BA in Business Administration from Mugla University, completed his
master degree at Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Department of Management and Organization in 2010 with a
thesis on „A study investigating the relation between innovation strategies and organizational performance in companies
by the longitude analysis method in the case of Çanakkale Seramik Inc.‟. Contact information: Çanakkale Onsekizmart
University Biga Faculty of Economics and Business Sciences, Business Administration Department Biga, Çanakkale
TURKEY, cagla-yavuz@hotmail.com.