Growth motivation and entrepreneurial autonomy in Panama

Growth Motivation and

Entrepreneurial Autonomy

in Panama

Name: Roberto Markus

Student number: 11418850 (UVA) & 2607324 (VU) MSc Entrepreneurship: Masters Thesis

Supervisor: Dr. M.W. van Gelderen

Abstract

Autonomy is a fundamental part of entrepreneurship as it is considered a significant motive for entrepreneurship. This investigation looks at extending and generalizing the methodology of the studies carried out by van Gelderen (2016) and van Gelderen et al. (2017) regarding the autonomy experience in the Netherlands and in Russia. This is done in order to further understand the experience of autonomy and entrepreneurship in

Panama, and the fulfillment of the autonomy motive. Furthermore, this study also aims to understand the dynamics of growth when looking its effects on autonomy. From a sample of 12 business owners in Panama, half having and half lacking growth ambitions, this study was able to identify that customers and governmental uncertainties have a negative impact on both growth and non-growth motivated business owners. Financial autonomy increases the autonomy experienced by both types of business owners. Finally, business owners with growth motivation find partnerships to enhance autonomy, and consider employees important despite sacrificing a certain level of autonomy in some cases. The results of this investigation suggest that growth motivation can be larger, equal to, or less than autonomy motivation. This investigation found one case for growth motivation equaling autonomy motivation, 5 cases where the business owners with growth intentions sacrificed autonomy in a certain aspect(s) in order to achieve growth ambitions, and all non-growth business owners as having greater autonomy motivation. The similarities with the Netherlands were that customers negatively impact autonomy and partners positively enhance autonym. With regards to Russia there were similarities in the sense that the government had impact on the autonym experienced by business owners.

Table of Contents

GROWTH MOTIVATION AND ENTREPRENEURIAL AUTONOMY IN PANAMA ... 6

1. INTRODUCTION ... 6

1.1 BACKGROUND ... 6

1.2 CONTRIBUTION TO LITERATURE AND PROBLEM STATEMENT ... 7

1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ... 7

1.4 RELEVANCE ... 8

1.5 OVERVIEW ... 9

2 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK/ LITERATURE REVIEW ... 10

2.1 AUTONOMY ... 10

2.2 AUTONOMY IN RUSSIA AND THE NETHERLANDS ... 11

2.3 PANAMA ... 14 2.3.1 Current situation ... 14 2.3.2 Hofstede dimensions ... 15 2.4 GROWTH ... 18 2.5 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ... 20 3 METHOD ... 22 3.1 DESIGN ... 22 3.2 SAMPLE ... 22 3.3 MEASURES ... 24 3.4 VIGNETTES ... 24 3.5 INTERVIEWS ... 25 3.6 AUTONOMY GRAPH ... 25 3.7 ANALYSIS ... 26 4 RESULTS ... 28

THEME 1:POWER OF CUSTOMERS ... 29

THEME 2:COMPLEMENTARY BUSINESS PARTNERS ENHANCE AUTONOMY ... 32

THEME 3:TIME (BALANCE VS.HARD WORK) ... 34

THEME 4:EMPLOYEES ... 36

THEME 5:FINANCIAL AUTONOMY ... 38

THEME 6:GOVERNMENTAL UNCERTAINTY ... 39

5 DISCUSSION ... 43

5.1 ADAPTATION TO FRAMEWORK ... 43

5.2 SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES WITH RUSSIA AND THE NETHERLANDS ... 44

5.3 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS ... 46

5.4 ADDITION TO LITERATURE ... 47

5.5 LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH ... 48

6 CONCLUSION ... 50 BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 51 APPENDIX: ... 54 APPENDIX 1: INTERVIEW SCHEDULE ... 54 APPENDIX 2: INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS ... 58 Growth Interviews ... 58 Non-growth interviews ... 85

Statement of originality

This document is written by Roberto Markus who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

The copyright rests with the author. The author is solely responsible for the content of the thesis, including mistakes. The university cannot be held liable for the content of the author’s thesis.

Growth Motivation and Entrepreneurial autonomy in Panama

1. Introduction

Autonomy is considered to be a leading motivator for entrepreneurs across all business types to pursue an entrepreneurial career (Stephan, Hart, Mickiewicz, & Drews, 2015). A leading author of business and management books, Daniel Pink mentioned “When people have the ability to direct their own lives, they do better work” (Kauffman, 2016). This shows the importance of entrepreneurship. Furthermore, based on an empirical

investigation van Gelderen & Jansen (2006) concluded that entrepreneurs seek autonomy in order to achieve still other motives. Other motives included people pursuing

entrepreneurship as they wished to do their own thing, control over others, and to escape control from others (negative freedom) (van Gelderen & Jansen, 2006). According to Lange and Prottas, not only does autonomy have a significant role in entrepreneurial motivation but also in entrepreneurial satisfaction. According to the literature, the different between the levels of employee satisfaction versus entrepreneur satisfaction is determined by the amount of autonomy the entrepreneur experiences (Lange, 2012; Prottas 2008). This suggests that autonomy is a fundamental part of entrepreneurship. It has been mentioned that autonomy and entrepreneurship are often seen to go hand in hand. However, as Van Gelderen (2016) has identified in a study looking at

entrepreneurial experience in the Netherlands, business owners are constantly confronted with autonomy challenges and situations that create tension upon their autonomy. This article was able to shed some light on the challenges business owners experience when gaining and maintaining autonomy, which was otherwise not looked at by other

investigations. On a daily basis an operational business is experiencing challenges in relation to their autonomy, making it an important matter to investigate (van Gelderen, 2016).

1.2 Contribution to literature and problem statement

Autonomy is often described as a motive for entrepreneurship, but there is little research investigating whether this autonomy motive has been fulfilled. This investigation will firstly address the knowledge gap in the literature concerning the experience of

entrepreneurial autonomy in Panama, building upon research that has been executed in the Netherlands and Russia, respectively. Furthermore, this investigation will contribute to literature by investigating the relation between autonomy and growth motivation. Currently, there is a lack of understanding about the dynamics of autonomy and growth as autonomy can be affected positively, neutrally or negatively by growth, however we do not understand the dynamic of how this works.

1.3 Research questions

For this investigation of entrepreneurial autonomy in Panama there are two aspects that are being investigated; experience of autonomy and growth motivation. Firstly, this investigation looks at extending the study of autonomy in the Netherlands and Russia by van Gelderen et al. (2017) and van Gelderen (2016), which centers on the entrepreneurial autonomy experience. This will provide information regarding the autonomy motive and experience which currently has no research. Furthermore, this investigation investigates the role of autonomy on growth motivation of Panamanian entrepreneurs. As mentioned earlier, autonomy can be affected by growth in several ways, yet there is little research indicating how the dynamics of this relationship works. Collectively, this investigation will look at the autonomy experience of business owners, and how this differs when having growth motivation. This will address the identified problem statement of having little research on autonomy fulfillment as a motive and understanding the dynamics of growth when looking at entrepreneurship.

For this part of the investigation, the following is the research question:

What determines the experience of entrepreneurial autonomy in Panama and how does autonomy relate to growth motivation?

In order to be able to address the research question of this investigation, the following sub questions must be answered which address and define different components of the main research question. The sub questions are the following:

What is entrepreneurial autonomy? What determines growth motivation?

1.4 Relevance

By looking at both autonomy and growth this investigation will add value to the existing literature and understanding of autonomy and growth. There is little understanding about autonomy in the Panamanian context. This knowledge gap in the literature will be addressed by further building upon the investigations of van Gelderen (2016) and van Gelderen et al. (2017) which looked at the Netherlands and Russia, empirically. The findings of these autonomy studies identified the importance of looking at autonomy in different cultural setting. Generalization and extension studies in different cultural settings are becoming fundamental parts in increasing the reliability of the findings (Vacha-Haase, 1998). Furthermore, it is unclear how the dynamics between growth and autonomy operate. Autonomy can be impacted in several ways when looking at growth, yet there is a lack of understanding on how this relationship actually works. Wiklund et al.’s (2003) looked at growth motivation based on the consequences of growth. As the role of autonomy was overlooked in this study, this investigation will further build upon the literature of autonomy by making links between autonomy and the consequences of growth. This will indicate the role of autonomy when looking at growth and increase our understanding of the dynamics of autonomy as the effects of growth on autonomy can be either positive, negative or neutral.

1.5 Overview

This investigation proceeds by looking at current literature regarding autonomy and growth. In the following chapter, this study primarily looks at studies of autonomy that were carried out in the Netherlands and Russia, and a growth study depicting the

formation of growth motivation. Furthermore, literature is discussed that can potentially explain and effect the experience of entrepreneurial autonomy and growth. Following this, the method of this investigation is described with its qualitative research design. The final section of this investigation is when the results are presented, discussed and a conclusion is drawn.

2 Conceptual framework/ Literature review

This investigation is focusing on the concept of entrepreneurial autonomy and how this is influenced by growth. In order to achieve this, van Gelderen (2016) and van Gelderen et al. (2017) investigation of the Netherlands and Russia were taken into account when creating the autonomy study of Panama. Investigating entrepreneurial autonomy in the Panamanian context provided more insights of how entrepreneurial autonomy works, and how the results may differ from the Dutch and Russian study. This is done by looking at a range of autonomy related tensions, which will illustrate how autonomy is affected in different situations. The entrepreneurial autonomy aspect of this investigation is inductive, as there are factors that allow expectations to be derived. Furthermore, Wiklund et al.’s (2003) investigation regarding consequences of growth and attitude towards growth was used in the framework in order to measure the impact of growth on autonomy.

2.1 Autonomy

Autonomy and entrepreneurship have been linked in many investigations. Some argue that this is a result of the decision-making aspects of autonomy that business ownership provides. These decisions are to do with what work will be done, how it will be done, and when it will be done (Schjoedt, 2009). This decision-making freedom is not dependent on the business structure the entrepreneur adopts, as they can be an independent contractor or a business employing others (van Gelderen, 2010). Sen (2009) argues that the freedom experienced from business ownership is the case in both developed and developing countries (Sen, 1999). Some papers suggest that entrepreneurs need autonomy just to have the decision-making rights and freedom (van Gelderen, 2010), yet there is a lack of literature concerning the autonomy fulfillment of entrepreneurs. Frese et al. (2014) argue that rather than looking at autonomy fulfillment, there is a significant amount of literature concerning financial performance (Frese & Gielnik, 2014), and the assumption that autonomy is a given for entrepreneurs (Lumpkin, Cogliser, & Schneider, 2009). This suggests that entrepreneurs do not have to work in order to achieve and maintain autonomy. Van Gelderen argues against autonomy being an inherent part of

entrepreneurship. Based on his study of autonomy in the Netherlands, he argues that business owners must make an effort to maintain and achieve autonomy. This investigation found autonomy to be very dynamic (van Gelderen, 2016).

When looking at autonomy, van Gelderen and Jansen (2006), apart from recognizing the intrinsically enjoyment of having autonomy, considered three motives which

entrepreneurs seeking autonomy will strive for, these are: independence, self-congruence and control. In order for the entrepreneurs to realize these motives a certain level of autonomy must be in place as it indicates entrepreneurial “freedom” (van Gelderen & Jansen, 2006), implying that autonomy plays a central part in achieving this scenario. This investigation will use the definition presented in the autonomy study in Russia and the Netherlands with the owners having the ability of making decisions. These decisions are to do with the work that is done, when it has to be done and how it is done (van Gelderen, 2016).

2.2 Autonomy in Russia and the Netherlands

Between the van Gelderen et al. studies of autonomy of business owners in the

Netherlands and in Russia, there were many contrasting findings. The main findings in the Netherlands suggested that customers can be a threat to the autonomy of the

entrepreneur as they can influence it. Furthermore, business partners in the Netherlands regularly do not reduce autonomy but enhance it. This investigation is the Netherlands identified the dynamics in the autonomy level experienced, showing the changes of experienced decisional freedom. These changes showed the movement from the currently experienced, temporarily sacrificed, and involuntarily lost decisional freedom. Van Gelderen pointed out that there are several explanations for this as these movements are induced by importance of client and project, the current face in which the company finds itself in the business life cycle, and the financial position of the company. One of the key findings of this investigation is that the level of decisional freedom a business owner experiences is not the best indication of autonomy, but whether the amount of decisional freedom is voluntary (van Gelderen, 2016).

The study of van Gelderen et al. of autonomy in Russia found a different set of results in comparison to the investigation in the Netherlands. Russian business owners consider financial independence to be an essential part of their autonomy, they argue that they do not have to depend on others. Furthermore, as a result of the hostile business environment in Russia, many business owners adopt a forceful leadership style in order to handle the business environment and stakeholders. Business partners are regularly not seen as

autonomy enhancing such as was found in the Dutch study, but as hostile individuals who are not trustworthy. Van Gelderen et al. pointed out the preference for Russian business owner to do business by themselves and avoiding partners if possible. Another finding of this investigation is the use of an administrative resource in order to cope with the

pervasiveness of the government. It is said that business owners that have interference from the government have autonomy, otherwise there is the use of an administrative resource which can enhance the autonomy. The administrative resource can also decrease the autonomy if much of the companies business occurs as a result of them or if the resource claims ownership and/or decision rights.

The results of the Dutch and Russian study regarding autonomy were explained using the world values survey culture map in which the Netherlands scored high in self-expression values and Russia survival values (World Value Survey, 2017). These results suggest that individuals in the Netherlands value liberty over security, where as Russian individuals economic and physical security. In the Russian autonomy indicates financial

independence. Furthermore, the lack of trust of outsiders in Russia in comparison to the trust to outsiders in the Netherlands was also made apparent when explaining the results with the world survey research project (van Gelderen et al., 2017).

The Dutch study made use of a power versus dependency theory in order to explain the results. This investigation indicated that autonomy in the Netherlands is mostly about sticking to your values, belief and mission. If the business owners were to pursue a growth objectives or obtain financial success their autonomy might be compromised. For this reason power is the ability to decline things that affect autonomy, such as the

regard to dependencies, they are reduced by having less material requirements and remain small (van Gelderen, 2016). In the Russian study, the power relates to the resources that include financial and network. Moreover, the administrative resource in place to help protect the wealth and expand it belongs to power. However, this

administrative resource is also a dependency. This is because all the favors received must be returned (van Gelderen et al., 2017).

The Russian investigation results were interpreted and explained with the use of

institution theory. The adopted forceful leadership, prioritization of financial returns and administrative resources are adopted mechanisms to deal with the institutions in Russia. This reduces the number of start-ups and innovations that Russia experiences, as

individuals without the strength and capabilities to deal with this hostile environment are discouraged (van Gelderen et al., 2017). This was compared to the ease in which

individuals without any sort of power could start a business in the Netherlands, and become successful. When comparing the Netherlands with Russia, van Gelderen et al. (2017) argued that the institutions in the Netherlands including the rule of law, protection of property rights and more account for the start up environment in the Netherlands (van Gelderen et al, 2017).

This study looks to build upon the Dutch and Russian study of autonomy in order to determine the differences in experience within a new cultural context, Panama.

Therefore, in the following section, this investigation looks at specific economic, social, and cultural conditions that may potentially affect the experience of autonomy in

2.3 Panama

2.3.1 Current situation

As the two previous studies of autonomy in Russia and the Netherlands provided

contrasting results, it is important to look at the economic, social and cultural situation in Panama to understand potential differences. Firstly this investigation will look at the socio-economic conditions as well as cultural. Since the 1989 U.S. intervention known as the “invasion” of Panama with the objective to remove General Noriega from power, Panama has been noted to make the most progress in the region in terms of economical and political progress (Sullivan, 2012). Its economy has been highlighted as being one of the fastest growing economies experiencing a growth of 6 percent in 2016, in addition to the 7.2 percent that was experienced between 2001 and 2013 (The World Bank, 2016). Key sectors in Panama include logistics, transportation, mining, financial services and tourism. There are many emerging opportunities in these sectors as the result of the growth Panama is currently experiencing, suggesting private investment will maintain at a high level. Public investment remains high, as there are further plans in order to extend the current metro line, and the extra traffic generated as a result of the Panama Canal expansion (The World Bank, 2016). This shows the environment in Panama encourages entrepreneurship as a result of many opportunities and gaps in the market. Growth is promoted as opportunities and public and private investment can encourage firms to grow and expand in different segments. However, as a result of high inequalities in wealth in the population, not everybody has the same financial possibilities, which will impact the ability to grow for certain entrepreneurs.

Despite Panama being in a suitable position to continuity growing in the future, certain aspects need addressing. Having made a start to address issues such as poverty, other constraints to growth are infrastructure, education and skills, and the functioning of public institutions. Furthermore, Panama is also addressing corruption and tax evasion. Following the Panama Papers scandal, Panama has to provide transparency to the international community and cooperate in order to battle tax evasion. This creates progress in terms of transparency and exchange information in the past (OECD, 2016).

Based on these challenges, it can be seen that the environment is not yet as beneficial as it should be for start up companies, and the ineffective public institutions might work as a constraint for start up motivated by growth. Furthermore, as the Panamanian system offers many tax advantages, business owners/entrepreneurs might not necessarily see the need to grow. Furthermore, as a result of a controversial image, Panamanian firms might not be keen in expanding into international markets.

When looking at the current socio-economical conditions of Panama, entrepreneurship motives can be due to autonomy but also the market opportunities, which were described above. This goes inline with the start up motive being a market opportunity as discussed by Gatewood et al. (1995) (Gatewood, Shaver, & Gartner, 1995). This may suggest that rather than being autonomy driven, entrepreneurs may be oriented in addressing a market opportunity. The high inequalities of wealth that are currently present may indicate that entrepreneurs with adequate funds are able to experience more autonomy as they are able to pursue all types of opportunities available whereas the other entrepreneurs will be constrained and working based on their own means suggesting a decreased level of autonomy. The differences in the level of education can force entrepreneurs to work with employees and partners in order to compensate for this, potentially results in a decrease of autonomy. As the result of Panama having a controversial image, entrepreneurs may chose to not expand abroad as this will impact their autonomy in terms of regulations, extra controls and customers. Furthermore, the corruption that is currently being

experienced in the country may discourage individuals from becoming entrepreneurs as the result of their autonomy being constrained as a result of a loss of control.

2.3.2 Hofstede dimensions

There is a lack of literature in the field of autonomy in Panama. However, when looking at the cultural dimensions, information regarding the autonomy in Panama can be obtained. The Geert Hofstede cultural dimensions look at the influence of culture in the workplace. This is done by the use of the six dimensions: power distance, individualism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, long-term orientation, and indulgence (Hofstede, 1993; Hofstede 2017). With regard to power distance, Panama scores significantly high.

This suggests that Panama is a hierarchical society. In the workplace, this means that there is a high power distance in which everybody is aware of his or her place without need of further justification. Some attributes of a high power distance are centralized decision making where employees expect to be told what to do. Furthermore, high power distance is further portrayed by inequalities in a country (Hofstede, 2017). In terms of autonomy this suggests the importance of managers/owners believe in their decision making rights as it is very centralized and not questioned by the other employees. This suggests higher autonomy in the event employees do not claim decision-making rights, and a negative impact if they do.

The following dimension is individualism, Panama scores low in this dimension suggesting it is a collectivistic society. Collectivistic societies are those in which

members can expect or are expected to take care of family, friends, and other members of their groups. In Panama there is an emphasis on strong long-term relationships and loyalty. Work relationships are considered as extended families. In collectivistic societies, the emphasis in on “we” rather than “I”. Hiring and promotion decisions are based on in-group (Hofstede, 2017). Panama being a collectivistic society indicates the preference to work with others, suggesting that business owners might have a preference of having partners or employees. However, this can have a negative impact on autonomy if they claim decision-making rights. Furthermore, as a result of work relations being considered family employees may find becoming entrepreneurs difficult as they will leave their family. Due to the importance of relationships in the business environment in Panama, newcomers may have their autonomy reduced as they will have to find a way to conform to this cultural trait.

With regard to masculinity, Panama scores moderately low suggesting it is a relatively feminine society. Characteristics are that there is an objective that is working in order to live, with a focus on quality of life rather than competition. Other characteristics are that managers seek consensus, and that people seek equality and solidarity in their working life. Feminine societies value incentives such as flexibility and free time (Hofstede, 2017). This dimension illustrates the importance of control, independence and flexibility

with regard to autonomy. Furthermore, business owners will differentiate between work and personal time suggesting their autonomy can be negatively effected if their personal time is altered.

Panama has a preference for avoiding uncertainty. Characteristics of uncertainty avoidance are low tolerance for unconventional ideas and behavior. Furthermore, there are needs for rules, people tend to be busy and work hard, people understand the value of time, and there is a resistance to innovation (Hofstede, 2017). This can relate to

autonomy as people will not differentiate between their personal time and work time, as it will be seen as one.

With regard to long-term orientation and indulgence there is no information available for Panama, however this investigation will use the result of Colombia, as it is a neighboring country that has scored similar in all the other dimensions (Hofstede, 2017). Panama scores low in terms of long-term orientation, this means it is a normative country. Characteristics or normative countries are that they have great respect for traditions, focus on obtaining quick results, and tend to not save for the future (Hofstede, 2017). The final dimension is indulgence, where Panama is considered to be an indulgent country. Characteristics of indulgent countries are that people tend to fulfill their needs regarding having fun and enjoying life. Furthermore, indulgent countries tend to have optimistic people with a positive attitude. Leisure time is a fundamental aspect of

indulgent countries, where people behave and spend their money as they wish (Hofstede, 2017). This is an important factor when looking at autonomy in Panama as people considers their independence and decision-making rights a fundamental aspect of their cultural norms.

Based on Hofstede dimensions it can be expected that autonomy is mostly influenced by ability to determine working and leisure time, as well as centralized decision-making. Working with others is something that is favored and looked as family, thus it is expected it will not play a big role with regard to entrepreneurial autonomy. It is expected that

customers will be seen as a determinant that affects autonomy, as the entrepreneur has to respond to the customers needs and not vice versa, giving the customers the power over the entrepreneurs. When looking at the Hofstede dimensions, the importance of managing time in terms of leisure is a fundamental part of the Panamanian culture, and the

customers/clients can be seen as the biggest threat to this.

From all the presented literature regarding socio-economic conditions and cultural dimensions there are several expectations that arise in regards to autonomy in Panama. Firstly, due to the current socio-economic conditions is can be expected that there are entrepreneurs that have autonomy as a motive of entrepreneurship, but also market opportunities that are arising as described. Entrepreneurs that have an autonomy motive will be negatively impacted as a result of growth as this would require more employees, partners and investors, resulting in reduced decision-making rights. The entrepreneurs with autonomy as a start up motive will be less inclined to grow in comparison to those who have market opportunity as a start up motive. Entrepreneurs with growth motives may be inclined to reflect the following Hofstede dimensions where they have a preference to work with others, emphasis on hard work. This may be contrasted by autonomy motive entrepreneurs who may have a preference for centralized decision-making, resistance to innovation, and a lot of emphasis on personal time. As this study is explorative in nature, I will not test these expectations formally but rather revisit them in the discussion based on the acquired findings.

2.4 Growth

There are many models that illustrate the relationship between entrepreneurship and growth. Examples are the study of Wiklund et al. (2003) looks at small business

managers and their motivation to grow their company and the study of Davidsson (1991) that looks at understanding growth versus non-growth relationship in small businesses. The Wiklund et al. (2003) was a quantitative investigation looking at the relation between expected consequences of growth and attitude towards growth. This study looked at a total of 1,470 Swedish firms that were in the manufacturing, service and retail industries

over a ten-year period. They carried out their investigation by asking respondents and measuring on a 7 point good/bad scale the effects of doubling the number of employees within five years. Furthermore, they measured how the doubling of the numbers of employees would affect the following consequences of growth: workload, work tasks, employee well-being, personal income, control, independence, survival of crises, product/service quality (Wiklund, Davidsson, & Delmar, 2003). Wiklund et al. (2003) argue that these expected consequences of growth shape small business managers attitudes towards growth. The findings of this investigation suggest that non-economic concerns may play a bigger role than expected financial outcomes when shaping attitude towards growth. The consequence employee well-being had the strongest impact towards attitude towards growth. This paper argued that the business owners were not keen on growing as they may loose the positive atmosphere within the organization (Wiklund, Davidsson, & Delmar, 2003). The findings of this investigation may be influenced by the Swedish culture, as Sweden is a feminine society suggesting that different results may be expected in other countries (Hofstede, 2017).

Davidsson takes a different approach when looking at growth, he argues that small business growth is explained by entrepreneurs needs, growth, and opportunity

(Davidsson, 1991). The result of this investigation suggested that these three factors do actually explain the relationship between growth and non-growth firms with regard to historical data. Furthermore, need which makes reference to the entrepreneurs motivation to grow the firm was the most important in explaining the relationship in comparison to ability and opportunity.

Growth and non-growth aspirations can be determined in several ways. It can be assumed that someone with a higher level in education with have higher aspirations than someone who doesn’t, suggesting higher growth motivation. Hisrich et al. (1998) discovered based on a study done in the United States that things such as experience, people skills,

organizing skills and level of education are associated with business growth. Non-growth is associated with independence motivation and financial skills (Hisrich & Brush, 1988) (Kolvereid, 1992).

Estrin et al. (2013) looks at entrepreneurship and institutions theory in order to explain the different growth aspiration. Their findings suggest that entrepreneurs with growth ambitions benefit from both strong and smaller governments, and are constrained by a corrupt environment. The use of networks can assist with some but not all institutional deficiencies (Estrin, Korosteleva, & Mickiewicz, 2013).

2.5 Conceptual framework

This study looks at the relationship between growth motivation and entrepreneurial autonomy in the Panamanian environment. This investigation is an inductive theory building effort on how autonomy affects growth motivation, and why individuals have differing views on autonomy and growth. Wiklund et al. (2003) study will be replicated as it looks at growth motivation of small business to expand their firms. Wiklund et al. (2003) looked at eight consequences of growth that shaped a ventures attitude towards growth (Wiklund, Davidsson, & Delmar, 2003). As this investigation looks at autonomy, this study has separated two consequences (independence and control), as they are motives that autonomy fulfills, subsuming them as autonomy. Furthermore, based on literature this investigation has included self-congruence from the van Gelderen et al. (2006) paper in the autonomy section illustrated below.

Figure 1: Conceptual framework

As shown in the Figure 1, this investigation will be primarily focused on the relationship between autonomy and the consequences of growth. The entrepreneur’s growth

motivation is shaped from their autonomy and the consequences of growth, which are determined by the entrepreneurs view on growth (moderating variable). This

investigation has considered that Wiklund et al. (2003) used attitude towards growth (Wiklund, Davidsson, & Delmar, 2003), however for this investigation the term growth motivation will be used. Furthermore, the eight consequences of growth have been reduced to six, placing independence and control in autonomy with the inclusion of self-congruence.

The expectations of this investigation are that view on growth will have a significant impact on growth motivation. If the view of growth is positive (negative), autonomy and all the consequences of growth will be positive (negative). With a positive (negative) view on growth, autonomy will positively (negatively) influence all the consequences of growth and vice versa. An example is if the view of growth is positive, workload will increase requiring the entrepreneur to hire employees in order to complete the additional work allowing the entrepreneur to maintain and gain autonomy.

Venture (Entrepreneur) Autonomy -  Independence -  Control -  Self congruence Consequences of growth -  Workload -  Work tasks -  Employee well-being -  Personal income -  Survival of crisis -  Product/ service quality Growth mo9va9on View on growth

3 Method

3.1 Design

This investigation will be a qualitative study as the theory status of autonomy in the Panamanian context is nascent, thus there will be a good methodological fit for this investigation (Edmondson & McManus, 2007). Furthermore this investigation looks at generalizing and extending (Miller & Bamberg, 2016; Sang & Kwan, 1999) the

methodology of the following authors: van Gelderen (2006), van Gelderen et al. (2017) and Wiklund et al. (2003). Due to the modification made in the methodology this investigation is no longer a replication but a generalization and extension. This

investigation will determine whether the relation described in the conceptual framework between growth and autonomy is accurate.

3.2 Sample

The twelve business owners/ entrepreneurs for the sample of this investigation were obtained through the use of network and referrals. Using personal network and referrals in Panama is an effective way of obtaining good respondents, as a cultural trait is not to provide much personal information and more specifically information about your business to outsiders (Diran, 2009). This investigation required a sample of small

businesses that are comparable in term of size. Small businesses in this investigation are defined as having less than fifty employees (Becchetti & Trovato, 2002). The sample required having half of the business owners to think of growth in a positive way, and the other half to think of growth in a negative way. The difference in the perception of growth allows to determine patterns in the findings. When talking to the respondents, it was important for them to consider autonomy as being important to them, for this reason their view on the importance of autonomy was measured. If this is not the case then their responses will not be inline with the tested framework. This investigation used a non-probability sampling method (Tansey, 2007), as it required certain characteristics in the sample such as: finding autonomy important, positive growth motivation, negative

growth motivation, and small businesses. The use of small sized firms is a fundamental aspect as the second part of this investigation looked at growth motivation. The table below illustrates the descriptive statistics of the respondents for this investigation:

Table 1: Descriptive statistics

Variable Category Growth Non-growth

N % of 6 N % of 6

Gender Male

Female 6 0 100 0 4 2 66.7 33.3

Economic Outlook High Growth Growth Stable Decline 0 3 3 0 0 50 50 0 0 1 3 2 0 16.7 50 33.3 Business Partners 0 1 2 3 4 2 1 2 1 0 33.3 16.7 33.3 16.7 0 4 2 0 0 0 66.7 33.3 0 0 0 Sector Motive of autonomy Production Retail Business Services Consumer Services Control Independence Self congruence 0 0 1 5 3 2 1 0 0 16.7 18.3 50 33.3 16.7 0 1 2 3 6 0 0 0 16.7 33.3 50 100 0 0 Growth Non-growth

Variable M SD Range M SD Range

Age of respondent 32.2 10.3 25–53 46.3 15.3 25–64

Age of firm 6 7.1 1–19 10.5 10.8 2–17

Number of businesses founded 1.5 0.84 1–3 1.7 1.03 1–3 Number of businesses still being owned 1.17 0.4 1–2 1.7 1.03 1–3

Number of employees 6.7 6.1 1–18 8.5 9 1–25

3.3 Measures

This research replicated all the qualitative measures used in the three studies which this research is based on, as it required obtaining the same type information in order to be able to compare and assess the differences. When replicating the autonomy studies carried out in The Netherlands and Russia, the measures used are vignettes and autonomy graph. Interviews were included in order to obtain descriptive statistics. The interviews were used to measure the growth motivation of the entrepreneurs.

3.4 Vignettes

This investigation measured autonomy in several different ways. Due to the nature that autonomy is an abstract concept, respondents require assistance when thinking and talking about autonomy. For this reason, this investigation has replicated the vignettes used by van Gelderen (2016) in his autonomy study of the Netherlands. The vignettes are ten case studies simulating autonomy related tensions and challenges, where respondents are asked if they can relate to the situation, and how would they act if confronted with such a situation. Respondents gave examples of their experiences as well as the outcomes. These events could have happened at any point in the respondent’s career. This investigation used the vignettes used in the autonomy study in the Netherlands as opposed to Russia. The Dutch vignettes made use fictitious characters, as opposed to Russian investigation that made use of vignettes directly asking the business owners. The Dutch vignettes was more effective when carried out in trials because in some cases the respondents did not relate to the case, so they would not feel compelled to give an advice when the case was written in the “you” form. However, as the literature of Panama suggested that corruption is currently a vital issue in the country, this investigation has included an extra case (Vignette 10) from the Russian investigation and edited it with a fictitious character. The vignette that was included measures how corruption can impact autonomy (OECD, 2016).

3.5 Interviews

This investigation requires the collection of descriptive information such as the study of autonomy in the Netherlands and Russia, as well as the attitude towards growth by Wiklund et al. (2003). Interviews were used in order to obtain this information, which is displayed on tables. This part of the interview was carried out first when collecting the data.

With regard to the autonomy and growth motivation study, this research has formulated questions in order to assess how autonomy influences each consequence of growth from the Wiklund et al. (2003) investigation, which will then shape the overall growth

motivation. This part of the interview was carried out last, as the respondents have became more familiarized with the concept of autonomy and its meaning. The interview questions adopted the format used by Wiklund et al. (2003), but with the inclusion of autonomy further suggesting it no longer is a replication. These questions looked at how the six consequences of growth would be impacted in terms of autonomy if the business of the respondents were five times larger than its current size. Furthermore, this interview included a critical component. Based on the responses that were given by the

respondents, this investigation created a table illustrating arguments from a positive and negative effect on autonomy per consequence. These arguments were provided to the respondents in order to understand their reasoning, with the objective of identifying a relationship within this reasoning. The interviews were transcribed so that they could be analyzed as described in 3.7.

3.6 Autonomy graph

As was used in the study of autonomy in The Netherlands and Russia, this study also used the autonomy graph as it is replicating the studies. The autonomy graph provides insights into the experience of entrepreneurs and what events in their career affect their autonomy. The autonomy graph was to differentiate the experience of entrepreneurs/ business owners between the previous studies and Panama. Furthermore, this

investigation incorporated a question, which indicates how this autonomy graph will be affected in the event a growth strategy is adopted. This provided insights on how entrepreneurs/ business owners thing of growth and the effect on their autonomy.

3.7 Analysis

Both the studies of autonomy in The Netherlands and Russia made use of thematic analysis procedures as indicated by Braun et al. (2006) and Guest (2012) in order to analyze the results (Brain and Clarke, 2006; Guest, 2012). A thematic analysis is a method used in qualitative research often yet is not always acknowledged, it allows identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns in the data, which other qualitative methods do not (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Whenever something in the text has a relation to the experience of autonomy and its development over time, it is given a code and put on an excel file. This code is known as the first order code in which it is literally what is written in the text without any interpretation. The following step in the thematic analysis was to group the first order analysis together until higher order codes emerged. Higher order codes were obtained by color coding and grouping all first order codes that relate to each other. These higher order codes can then be identified as themes. Thematic analysis is appropriate when conducting inductive research as it the case. One thing that was taken into account as mentioned by Braun et al. (2006) is that themes should not directly match the questions asked by the researcher, otherwise it will be unlikely to detect unidentified patterns (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Furthermore, through the use of vignettes in the methodology if this investigation, respondents provide examples based on their experience, reducing the risk.

When analyzing the results, the coding procedures were executed separately for growth business owners and non-growth business owners. The results of these codes were then compared against each other. By doing this codes were determined for growth business owners and for non-growth business owners, allowing themes to be created. This allowed determining the differences in the results obtained from each sample, as they had in some

cases opposing or differing views. By doing so patterns could be identified from the results.

4 Results

This study looks at the overall experience of entrepreneurs in Panama and their growth motivation. This investigation looked at twelve business owners, where the sample was equally split based on growth and non-growth motivation. As mentioned in the

methodology, the results were coded individually for growth and non-growth motivated entrepreneurs. The definitions of autonomy provided by the respondents involved having control over the business and the direction of the business, as well as being able to manage time and what tasks to focus on. Through the analysis of the interviews with the growth and non-growth business owners, several themes were identified which influence the autonomy experience of the entrepreneurs in Panama. These themes are displayed on Table 2, which indicates the impact on autonomy based on growth ambitions.

Respondents that are not part of an emerging pattern were closely investigated in order to determine what sets them apart (Miles & Huberman, 1984, p. 237)

Table 2: Themes and Findings

Theme Impact on autonomy Growth Non growth

N % of 6 N % of 6 Customers Positive Neutral Negative 0 0 6 0 0 100 0 1 5 0 16.7 83.3 Business partners Positive

Neutral Negative 5 1 0 83.3 16.7 0 2 4 33.3 0 67.7 Time Positive Neutral Negative 5 1 0 83.3 16.7 0 2 1 3 33.3 16.7 50 Employees Positive Neutral Negative 3 0 3 50 0 50 0 3 3 0 50 50 Financial autonomy Positive

Neutral Negative 6 0 0 100 0 0 6 0 0 100 0 0 Governmental uncertainty Positive

Neutral Negative 0 0 6 0 0 100 0 0 6 0 0 100

Theme 1: Power of customers

When analyzing the interviews of business owners with growth and non-growth ambitions, it became apparent that customers significantly affect the autonomy

experienced by the business owners. As Table 2 indicates, out of the six business owners with growth ambitions, all respondents indicated to be negatively impact in terms of autonomy by the customers. Furthermore, when looking at the business owners without growth ambitions it can be noted that five out of the six share the same thought. The one deviant who did not experience this negative impact on autonomy from the customer may be as the result of that person handling in safety equipment for businesses in the

construction and other industries where the customers are strongly regulated. The customers of this business owner operate in factories, construction sites, and other hazardous fields requiring them to follow strict regulations as opposed to determining their own needs.

When business owners make reference to their customers, they identify the different ways in which the customers are able to influence them. Firstly, it was stated by several business owners that their time is very much affected by their customers. One business owner with growth aspirations said “You need to compromise some of your time in order to deliver to the customers”, he continued by adding “customers have a lot of influence as they can change the date for when they wish to receive the report, and we have to adapt our time around this”. Another business owner with growth aspirations shared this sentiment of time as he mentioned “when I started obtaining more clients I had to invest more time and work more”. These quotes indicate the difficulty brought upon the business owners time management by the customers. The following is applicable to business owners who have no growth ambitions, this is shown in the following quote “We have had clients that make us give up our time, expect us to be available day and night”. When looking at autonomy, this impacts the ability of the business owner to decide when to do the work. However, three out of the six business owners with growth ambitions believe that this will be improved when they grow as they can delegate and create freedom for themselves. This is also suggested when looking at the autonomy

graphs where business owners consider their autonomy to fluctuate depending on the customers they are dealing with, however some believe that their autonomy will increase over time as they adopt a growth strategy.

Customers also have a strong ability to influence the offering of the business as well as the direction. Many business owners with growth and non-growth aspirations mention things such as “adapt to the customer”, “not worth ignoring customers needs”, “it is important to be flexible to the customer”. This can show how the business owners are very much dependent on the customers that they are willing to adapt and change the concept of their business in order to attract and maintain customers. The willingness to adapt and be flexible goes at the expense of the product/service of the business and as well as the quality and principles. Business owners with both growth and non-growth ambitions believe that the customers hold all the power, and that they must attempt to measure their needs in any way possible. This is shown by the following quotes “No should not be in your vocabulary, always do what you can for your customers”, “clients always buy what is below the standard of what you want to sell”, and “the most important is the customers demand rather than focusing on what we like”. These quotes suggest that the customers have demands that conflict with the believes of the business owners. With regard to autonomy, business owners are confronted by the fact that the customers are forcing them to make decisions concerning what work its done, how its done as well as when its done, which is what autonomy is all about. The decision-making rights of the business owner are reduced to managing the company in regards to administration and employees, but regarding the direction and offering of the firm customers play a leading role, negatively influencing the experienced autonomy.

The general consensus of business owners towards the customers is that the customer is the boss. When looking at the Hofstede dimensions, it was noted that Panama scores high in power distance (Hofstede, 2017). When looking at the relation between the business owners and the customers it is suggested that the business owners accept the authority of the customers over them and conform to it. This is portrayed in the following response “when you are an employee you respond to one boss, but when you are a business owner

you respond to your customer who are your bosses”. The Hofstede dimension of power distance in Panama suggests that in the work place employees accept the authority and unequal distribution of power (Hofstede, 2017). However, from the findings of this investigation it is suggested that business owners perceive their customers as an authority. This is further outlined by the following quotes “they are paying for my services, so they have the right to tell me what they expect from me”, “customers are always demanding things from us as they pay the bill” and “I’m not the one paying for it so I am not entitled to make the decisions”. These quotes suggest that business owners have accepted the authority of the customer, which is built on the basis that the customer pays so they can decide. Many of the interviewed business owners with the exception of one spoke about a relationship where the customer had the authority and ability to determine what would happen. Business owners would have to comply with this in order to keep the customers as shown in the following quote “I felt that I had to give them a lot of discount in order to keep them”. As a result of this, two respondents who do not have growth ambitions mentioned “drop problematic customers” and “carefully select

customers” as the result of loosing significant autonomy. Furthermore, the respondent that indicated not to have a negative impact on autonomy as a result of their customers indicated that if this were the case they would “draw the line and set the limits”. This results in three out of the six non-growth business owners letting their autonomy motive prevail.

The growth oriented business owners accept the loss of autonomy, where as three out of the non-growth business owners let their autonomy motive prevail and protect their autonomy. The remaining three business owners with non-growth objectives behave in the same manner as the growth oriented entrepreneurs. When looking at the individual cases, one of the business owners is an official supplier of the government. As a result of dealing with the government, the business owner already stated to have little “power” in this relation. Furthermore, when looking at the two other non-growth business owners, it can be stated that they both have the youngest firm of the non growth businesses. One of them is in the trading industry, due to the nature of the business and the competitiveness customers play a big role as they are the ones “paying”. The final non-growth respondent

owns food trucks. As explained by the business owner, he is very much dependent on the customers and their needs as the profit margins are “small”. This may suggest that this business owner requires the customers and by focusing on preserving autonomy customers may be lost. The fact that the customer is more important than preserving autonomy may also be explained by the fact that he is experiencing a decline.

Theme 2: Complementary business partners enhance autonomy

When analyzing the codes, having a business partner with complementary knowledge, skills and networks was found to enhance business owner’s autonomy experience when having growth aspirations, as indicated by table 2. This is because the business owners who have growth objectives recognize they will not be able to handle all aspects of their business, especially when experiencing growth. The majority of business owners with growth objective acknowledge that they have their strengths and their weaknesses. With the use of complementary business partners they are able to reduce these weaknesses, and together make more informed decisions. This can be shown in the following quote “when making decisions I meet with my partner, we both come from different backgrounds in education and work, giving us different knowledge and strengths. When making

decisions on things that are under my specialty, I deal with them. The same goes for my partner. When it is something to do with the overall business we talk and analyze together exchanging ideas”. This shows how the ability to have someone that is complementary can create freedom to the partners as well as decision-making rights.

From the vignettes it was clearly stated by several respondents that partners must “focus on what they are good at”. If this is the case, they enhance their autonomy as they provide the required freedom and decision-making rights to one another. This is further portrayed in the following quote “partners are best for the business, and this is especially the case when they do what they are good at and don’t focus on things they don’t really

understand”. When focusing on their strengths, it was vastly argued that the business owners are able to experience the ability to making decisions with little interference. From the autonomy graph, it became apparent that in two cases the business owners felt

that their autonomy went down when they did not have the required knowledge in order to make an informed decision. By having partners, not only did the business owners feel their autonomy increased as they only focus on the tasks they are good at, but that they are more in control of their time. One business owner argued that he has more time to develop his ideas rather than dealing with day-to-day supervision as a result of having a partner.

Business owners with growth aspirations were all positive when talking about partners. Out of the six business owners with growth aspirations, four have partners and one is looking for a partner. One growth business owner remains without a partner as he works in close collaboration with his employees, suggesting that they can potentially play the role of a partner. Furthermore, this business owner has the youngest company of the sample and is still trying to determine the direction of his venture. This is contrasted to the non-growth business owners, where only two out of the six have a partner. The two business owners were positive regarding their partnerships, however the rest of the respondents referred to “never” wanting a business partner. Business owners with growth intentions look at partners as being a fundamental part of the business, and a necessity to grow. They look at the potential that can be achieved when working with others. The business owners who don not want to grow think of partners as potential drawbacks to the business, as they only increase the risk of conflict. The two business owners who do not have growth ambitions but do have partners share the same believes regarding

partners as the business owners with growth intentions. Arguments presented by business owners regarding the conflict risks were that you have to choose a partner with the same goals, so all action taken will have the objective of achieving this shared goal.

Furthermore, they argued that by meeting and talking conflicts can be quickly resolved. Conflict was not seen as a bad thing, as one respondent mentioned “partners are there to keep you sharp and prevent you from making bad choices”. Another respondent

mentioned that he allows his partner to proceed with his ideas when having a conflict, at the end they assess based on performance. This shows how partners help each other make decisions and at the same time provide the freedom which is a fundamental part of

When looking at the customers (theme 1), in some cases partners are seen to reduce the negative impact presented by the customers on their autonomy. An example of this was a business owner who has a partner that has Chinese origins. This partner is used to deal with the Chinese customers in Panama as the other owners feel that they loose their autonomy when dealing with these clients as the norms differ significantly. Another example was presented by a business owner who is strong at socializing and talking to people. He is able to talk to the clients as opposed to his partner who is very technical and more oriented with the production. By having a partner(s) business owners argue that they can take a day off when they need as the partner can take over their functions. This response was derived from the vignette which presented the case about an entrepreneur who worked very hard and found it difficult to take time for himself. Not only do partners provide the ability for business owners to take time for themselves, but also when dealing with certain customers.

Business owners with non-growth aspirations are more concerned with their ability to make decisions on their own as is suggested in Table 1 with the higher control. In response the vignette about making difficult decisions, all respondents spoke of the importance of business owners being able and having the ability to make difficult decisions for the company. However, those with growth aspirations could count on support from their partners where as the non-growth would emphasize on themselves as individuals having to make the decisions. When looking at alternative motives of autonomy (van Gelderen & Jansen, 2006), this suggests that as Panama has centralized decision making (Hofstede, 2017) business owners have the motive of being able to make the decisions as may not have been the case when they were employees.

Theme 3: Time (Balance vs. Hard work)

Business owners with ambitions to grow have a preference for hard work as shown on Table 2. They are more willing to invest their time to work as opposed to the business owners who do not want to grow. Non-growth business owners recognize the importance of working hard, but feel that balance in life is of great importance. Examples of this

would be the references made to hard work as being “temporary”. A respondent mentioned “I needed to invest a lot of time at the beginning to get the company started, and every now and then I have busy periods”. This show how these business owners “invest” their time in the business for a certain period knowing that it is only temporary. This can be further seen in the following quotes “I am motivated to work hard as I know this is only temporary” and “when starting my business I gave up a lot of time, now I don’t mind having two busy months dealing with projects and clients as I know overtime my workload will regulate and I will have more time for myself.” With the exception of two of the business owners who have no growth motivation, their view on autonomy is being able to divide time between work and personal time. The deviants are different in this case as one has the government as a client reducing the level of experienced

autonomy (theme 1) and the other one considers working hard a fundamental part of her business as she needs to be present in all aspects of her business so that the company does not loose her identity.

Business owners with growth aspirations think differently when it comes to hard work. They consider working hard very important, to the extent to which work occupies all of their time. This can be shown in the following quote “I don’t think it is a bad thing to be very busy and have little time for yourself”. Moreover, this respondent went further to say “This is actually what I prefer as I have been in the opposite situation as well”. They look at their hard work and many hours as a crucial part to building a successful business. Being involved in the business on a day-to-day basis is something business owners with growth aspirations feel strongly about, one respondent referred to this as feeling

“responsible” for the business. Unlike business owners without growth aspirations, these entrepreneurs do not differentiate between personal time and work time. They consider the time they are working part of their personal time as it is their passion and they have adopted a certain rhythm. This can be seen in the following quotes “we do spend a lot of time at work despite being established as it is our passion” and “when you are on

Currently, three business owners with growth objectives have a preference for hard work and believe their autonomy will go up as they grow. This goes in line with Hofstede, who argues that Panama have a preference for avoiding uncertainty (Hofstede, 2017). In the future, many of the respondents have suggested that they will be able to take more personal time once the business has become established as they will have employees (theme 4) to run the business, however the remaining three business owners with growth objectives believe their autonomy will be negatively impacted as a result of growth, suggesting growth motivation is larger than autonomy motivation in their case. When looking at table 1 in the method, it is noted that the business owners are younger when they have growth aspirations and the ones that do not have growth aspirations value personal time and “family time” which many referred to as being “priceless”.

Theme 4: Employees

Building on to the previous theme, business owners with growth aspirations and those without have differing views on employees. Firstly, business owners with growth

intentions look at employees as a “productive resource”. All business owners with growth intentions believe employees will have a positive impact on the business, however three believe the impact on their autonomy will be different. Despite three of them believing they will loose autonomy as a result to the increase in number of employees, they still believe pursuing a growth strategy is best suggesting autonomy is not as important to them (Table 1). Autonomy will be lost as a result of “delegating functions”, where as the others believe that autonomy will be gained through delegating. Employees are viewed as a resource that has knowledge and the ability to generate income (see also theme 5). This is shown in the following quotes “having more employees provides more business” and a respondent stating that more projects can be carried out with more employees. Five out of the six business owners believe that with the knowledge and expertise of the employees they will be able to survive a crisis. When looking at Table 1 and the responses provided by business owners with growth ambitions, they consider control less important than

non-growth business owners as they are aware it is impossible to maintain full control of something.

In contrast, non-growth business owners do not see employees as a productive resource but a something that requires more “monitoring and control”. Some argue that they are currently satisfied with the current number of employees with whom they have

established bond based on “trust” and “respect”. By having more employees it was stated by several respondents that time needs to be invested in order to control and monitor them, as well as profits going down as the result of the expense they produce. On Table 2, it can be seen how three business owners believe that more employees will have a

negative impact on the business, and three are neutral. It is important to note that the neutral business owners require the employees as they are providing services that require qualified professionals in order to execute. Furthermore, it is argued that the time

required controlling these employees comes at the expense of their personal time

reducing their autonomy. In the interview it was said that their work task and load will be negatively impacted reducing their autonomy as they spend less time focusing on their tasks as they have to “supervise”. Delegating functions is something these business owners are reluctant to do as they consider having full control very important. Some even mention functions such as “legal” and “finance” as something they will never delegate. As a result of growth, all business owners with growth motivation argue that employee well-being will increase. The relationship between the employees and the relations between the employees and the business owners will get better. Many arguments were on the basis that workload on individual employees will decrease providing a more relaxed environment. References were made to their current employees as being “overworked”. The general consensus regarding having more employees are that autonomy can be improved as a result of “formalization” in company procedures. Many made reference to the use of “manuals” in order to keep control and ensure high quality in the offering. One respondent mentioned the following which portrays the general view “having a more formalized environment with more employees will reduce the stress and create a better environment”. According to the business owners without growth motivation, with the

exception of one having mixed feelings the general agreement was that employee well being will be decreased. Respondents argued that the “family” environment will be lost, which they believe to be very important. This goes inline with the fact that Hofstede indicates that Panama is a collectivistic society (Hofstede, 2017). Furthermore, the respondents mentioned factors such as “increase in competition”, “loss of trust” and “close bonds will be broken”. This is said to have a negative impact on autonomy. The mixed feelings were looking at a combination of the advantages and disadvantages. This respondent considered the current conditions not optimal in terms of controlling

employees, as a more formal mechanism has to be in place. This respondent seemed to be more inclined to a negative impact as he believed investments in controlling systems reducing the apparent “trust” the employees may feel. Furthermore, this respondent noted the possible conflicts and tensions that could arise. This weighed over the increase in company culture that could arise as a result of more employees, creating better working environments.

Theme 5: Financial autonomy

Financial motives are suggested to be a big indicator of growth motivation for business owners with growth ambitions. Out of the twelve business owners as can be seen in Table 2, financial resources increase autonomy and as a result of growth. Despite this only half of the sample wants to grow. This could be as a result of the business owners with growth ambitions to be financially motivated. Several respondents with growth ambitions

mentioned that if personal income were not to increase, it would not be worth pursing a growth strategy. In some cases this growth strategy will be at the expense of the

autonomy as was mentioned earlier. Some argue that having higher compensation provides more autonomy as you gain freedom. This can be seen in how certain

respondents mention they will become more selective with their customers. An example of this is shown in the following quote “when you are financially independent, your autonomy goes up as you no longer depend on your customers so you can become more selective of who you deal with”. This can suggest that compensation enhances the experience of autonomy, and prevents customers (theme 1) from having such a negative