What distinguishes the

0

R i j k s u n i v e r s i t e i t G r o n i n g e n

What distinguishes the

cultural entrepreneur

from the conventional

entrepreneur?

A comparison using the E-Scan

Rudmer Heij

Master Thesis MSc Business Administration

Small Business & Entrepreneurship

1

What distinguishes the cultural entrepreneur from

the conventional entrepreneur?

A comparison using the E-Scan

Rijksuniversiteit Groningen Faculty of Economics & Business

MSc BA – Small Business & Entrepreneurship

Author:

Name: Rudmer Reindert Heij

Student number: 1731645

Address: Oude Ebbingestraat 81a, Groningen

Email: rudmer_heij@hotmail.com

Supervisor:

Name: prof. dr. P.S. Zwart

University: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

Master coordinator:

Name: dr. C.H.M. Lutz

2

Preface

This research attempts to reveal the underlying characteristics and capabilities of cultural entrepreneurs and compares these with those of conventional entrepreneurs. This thesis is part of the MSc Business Administration – Small Business & Entrepreneurship programme.

The E-Scan is used as an instrument for this research. It is an online assessment tool for entrepreneurs which is exploited by Entrepreneur BV. For this research a customized version of the E-Scan is used: the CreativeScan. The CreativeScan is specifically developed for entrepreneurs within the creative industry and is an initiative of Mariël Voogel and Martijn Driessen. I would like to thank Martijn Driessen and Mariël Voogel for enabling me to do this research by providing access to the CreativeScan and giving useful advice and feedback. In particular I would like to thank Mariël Voogel for the efforts she made to promote this research project. Also I would like to thank my supervisor, prof. dr. Peter Zwart for his excellent supervision. His inputs, knowledge and quick response to my questions made this research a positive experience for me. Furthermore I want to thank my sister and her partner for providing me access to an extensive network of cultural entrepreneurs. This network enabled me to find enough participants for this study. Last but not least, I would like to tribute my parents that have unconditionally supported me during my whole study-time.

Rudmer Heij

3

Abstract

The goal of this research is twofold. The first goal is to determine the characteristics and capabilities of the cultural entrepreneur and to compare them with those of the conventional entrepreneur. The second goal is to determine the differences between cultural entrepreneurs within the different subsectors of the creative sector (arts, media and entertainment and creative services). The focus of the study lies on the cultural entrepreneurs that are concerned with the initial creation process.

The instrument that is used for the data collection of this study is the E-Scan. The E-Scan is a fully structured online based test for (starting) entrepreneurs. By answering 111 questions participants gain insight in their entrepreneurial characteristics and capabilities. Especially for cultural entrepreneurs a customized version of the E-Scan is developed: the CreativeScan. This version is used for this study.

A lot of similarities exist between conventional entrepreneurs and cultural entrepreneurs. Both types of entrepreneurs are discovering or creating opportunities which they intend to exploit. However, the definition of cultural entrepreneurship suggests that the cultural entrepreneur seeks to exploit these opportunities without compromising his artistic mission and integrity. That is an important difference between conventional and cultural entrepreneurs.

The results identify six significant differences with the conventional entrepreneur in need for power, need for affiliation, internal locus of control, endurance, market awareness and flexibility. However, they did not always count for every subsector. No differences were found in need for achievement, need for autonomy, risk-taking propensity and creativity. In practice, cultural entrepreneurs can use the outcomes of this study as a starting-point to become aware of the underlying characteristics that characterize a (cultural) entrepreneur and to develop their entrepreneurship. Also CreativeScan can use the results in two ways. First the results can be used as the input for improving their automatically created test report. The characteristics and capabilities that appeared to be significantly different compared to conventional entrepreneurs could be explained in more detail. This may enhance the understanding of the cultural entrepreneurs. Second, The results can be used as input for coaching sessions or workshops that CreativeScan can facilitate in the future.

4

Index

1.1 Research goal, research question and sub questions. ... 7

1.2 Research design... 8

2. Theoretical Framework ... 9

2.1 Entrepreneurship ... 9

2.2 Entrepreneurship in the Creative Sector ... 10

2.2.1 The creative sector ... 10

2.2.2. Cultural Entrepreneurship ... 13

2.3 The Entrepreneur Scan (E-Scan) ... 15

2.4 Characteristics ... 18

2.4.1 Need for Achievement... 19

2.4.2 Need for Autonomy ... 21

2.4.3 Need for power ... 22

2.4.4 Need for Affiliation (Social Orientation) ... 23

2.4.5 Internal Locus of Control (Self Belief) ... 24

2.4.6 Endurance ... 25 2.4.7 Risk-taking propensity ... 25 2.5 Capabilities ... 27 2.5.1 Market Awareness ... 27 2.5.2 Creativity... 28 2.5.3 Flexibility ... 29 2.6 Conceptual Model ... 30 3. Methodology ... 32 3.1 Research Method ... 32 3.2 Participant Criteria ... 32 3.3 Data Collection ... 33 3.4 Data Analysis ... 34 4. Results ... 36

5

6. Limitations ... 44

7. Further Research ... 45

References: ... 46

Appendix I – Recruitment text ... 51

Appendix II –Invitation Email ... 52

Appendix III – SPSS Output Forms: Comparison E-Scan vs. CreativeScan ... 53

6

1. Introduction

Entrepreneurship is everywhere around us. From the bakery shop around the corner to the electro-discounters we find on the internet. These examples are straight-forward. However, also in sectors where we might not expect to find entrepreneurship it can be discovered. A good example is the creative sector in which cultural entrepreneurship can be observed.

Entrepreneurship in general saw daylight at the end of the eighteenth century (Wickham, 2006; Carter & Jones-Evans, 2006). More than a century later, major academic contributions were made by the Austrian economists Joseph Schumpeter (1934) and Israel Kizner (1973). By them, entrepreneurship was defined as a market disequilibrium phenomenon. More recently, Shane & Venkataraman (2000) introduced a definition that is still actual: the scholarly examination of how, by whom, and with what effects opportunities to create future goods and services are discovered, evaluated and exploited (Venkataraman, 1997).

A much younger concept in the academic world is cultural entrepreneurship, since it was introduced in the academic literature only a few decades ago. One of the pioneers in this field is sociologist Paul Dimaggio (1982). He introduced a new character named the cultural capitalists, which were artists that relied on their own resources (Dimaggio, 1982). In the early nineties, cultural entrepreneurship became a topic on the political agenda of the Kok-II government in the Netherlands. Led by State Secretary Rick van der Ploeg, the creative sector was encouraged to be less dependent on governmental support. This demanded a more entrepreneurial attitude (Van der Ploeg, 1991). Today this issue is very relevant again, given the poor economic climate and the resulting government cutbacks in the creative sector. Artists and others working in the Dutch creative sector are faced with cutbacks of € 200 million in the next four years. Also the Employment Income Artist Act (In Dutch: Wet Werk Inkomen Kunstenaars, WWIK) is abolished (De Krom, 2011). The WWIK was an alimony on the level of welfare, intended for young artists, with a total length of four years, to be taken within a period of ten years. To be eligible one must have completed an art course, and has to prove that he is an 'established artist' and already managed to generate some income. The abolishment of the WWIK forces young artists to be more independent. In general, these huge cutbacks in the creative sector, force the involved culture makers to find other ways to finance their activities. Cultural entrepreneurship opens new possibilities for them.

7

form without compromising their artistic mission and artistic integrity (Klamer, 2005, 2006).

Thus, the cultural entrepreneur must be able to combine his artistic talent with a business sense to be successful. However, very little is known about what the characteristics (also known as personality traits) and capabilities of the cultural entrepreneur actually are. It is relevant to investigate these, since the current economic climate forces people in the Dutch cultural sector to have a more entrepreneurial attitude. Investigating entrepreneurial characteristics and capabilities can enhance cultural entrepreneurs insight in where their strengths and weaknesses lie. Eventually this knowledge can lead to better performance of cultural entrepreneurs.

(Note: cultural entrepreneur and entrepreneur in the creative sector are used synonymously. For practical reasons the cultural entrepreneur in this research is named as a "he".)

1.1 Research goal, research question and sub questions.

The goal of this research is twofold. The first goal is to determine the characteristics and capabilities of the cultural entrepreneur and to compare them with those of the conventional entrepreneur. The second goal is to determine the differences between cultural entrepreneurs within the different subsectors of the creative sector. In order to do this the following research questions are investigated:

“What are the characteristics and capabilities of a cultural entrepreneur and what are the differences with the conventional entrepreneur?”

and

"What are the differences among cultural entrepreneurs within the subsectors of the creative sector?"

The following sub questions will complete the research:

- What are conventional entrepreneurship and cultural entrepreneurship and in what way do they differ or not?

- What subsectors of cultural entrepreneurship exist and in what way do they differ or not?

- What are the scores of the cultural entrepreneurs on the different characteristics and capabilities of the E-scan and what are the differences among the subsectors?

- On which of the characteristics and capabilities do cultural entrepreneurs differ in scores from the E-scan average profile of conventional entrepreneurs?

8

1.2 Research design

9

2. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework elaborates on the relevant concepts of this study. First, a brief explanation of conventional entrepreneurship will be given. Second, the different subsectors within the creative sector will be discussed in detail. Third, cultural entrepreneurship will be defined and explained. In this section the differences between conventional entrepreneurship and cultural entrepreneurship are also explicated. After this, the E-Scan will be introduced. Each personality trait and capability from this scan will explained thoroughly. The explanation of every personality trait and capability will be concluded with a hypothesis that relates it to cultural entrepreneurship per sub-sector.

2.1 Entrepreneurship

Nowadays, the word entrepreneur is widely used, both in everyday conversation and as a technical term in management and economics. Its origin lies in seventeenth-century France, where an entrepreneur was an individual commissioned to undertake a particular commercial project by someone with money to invest. In its early stages, this usually meant an overseas trading project. Such projects were risky, both for the investor and for the navigator-entrepreneur. The idea that the entrepreneur is someone who undertakes certain projects offers an opening for developing an understanding of the nature of entrepreneurship. Undertaking projects demands that particular tasks are engaged with the objective of achieving specific outcomes and that an individual takes charge of the project. That individual is the entrepreneur and entrepreneurship is then what the entrepreneur does (Wickham, 2006).

10

According to Shane (2003), Kirzner (1973) and Schumpeter (1934) disagreed over whether the existence of entrepreneurial opportunities involves the introduction of new information or just differential access to existing information. Kirzner (1973, 1985, 1997) argued that the existence of opportunities requires only differential access to existing information. In contrast, Schumpeter (1934) believed that new information is important in explaining the existence of entrepreneurial opportunities.

In line with the studies mentioned above, Driessen, the developer of the E-Scan, states that the wish or choice to become an entrepreneur is always triggered by an opportunity. However, to turn a wish or choice into reality, the opportunity that has been discovered has to be exploited (Driessen, 2005). The definition of entrepreneurship that Driessen uses in his dissertation is derived from Mollian & Leleux (1996):

"At the heart of entrepreneurship is the notion of action arising out of the pursuit of opportunity, as a result of which value is created. The entrepreneur starts with the opportunity and then seeks the

resource to exploit it."

This definition is in line with the foregoing theory and is used in this research.

2.2 Entrepreneurship in the Creative Sector

2.2.1 The creative sector

To define cultural entrepreneurship, first a definition of the creative sector has to be provided. When the concept creative sector is operationalized, three sub-sectors have to be delineated (Brinkhorst et al, 2005): arts (1), media and entertainment (2) and creative services (3). Within each of these sub-sectors the same value chain consisting four sequential steps can be distinguished (Brinkhorst et al, 2005): initial creation (1), production (2), distribution (3) and retail (4). The creative sector covers a variety of businesses, manufacturers and firms, depending on how broad the used definition is. The literature speaks of a narrow and a broad definition of the creative sector (Brinkhorst et al, 2005). In short, the narrow definition of the creative sector contains businesses that are purely focused on the initial creation, while the broad definition adds production, distribution and retail activities. Both the narrow and broad definition of the creative sector will be explained in more detail now.

The narrow definition of the creative sector is as follows (Marlet & Van Woerkens, 2005):

11

So, the narrow definition of the creative sector limits itself to businesses that are closely involved with the initial creative process, in which creativity is the scarce input factor. Businesses that are involved in a later stadium of the value chain are not included in this definition. In practice, industries that realize the initial creation, often also take care of the physical production process. A good example of this is the theatre industry. Physical production is only included in this definition if the involved business takes care of both the initial creation and the physical production. The advantage of limiting the narrow definition of the creative sector to purely the initial creation step in the value chain is that evident creative industries (for example film producers) are included, while for example printers (production of the creation of a writer) and contractors (production of the creation of an architect) are not included (Brinkhorst et al, 2005).

Now the narrow definition of the creative sector is discussed, the broad definition will be explained. The broad definition of the creative sector is as follows (Marlet & Van Woerkens, 2005):

"The broad definition includes the narrow definition plus the rest of the value chain: manufacturers, distributors and resellers that bring creative products to the consumer."

12

adds the rest of the value chain to the initial creation step for the sub-sectors "Arts" and "Media and Entertainment". The consequence of using this method is that museums, libraries, publishers, theatres and galleries, construction companies, brokers and department stores operating in the subsector arts as well as media and entertainment are not included in the broad definition of the creative sector.

13

Table 1: sub-sectors in the creative sector

Creation Physical Production Distribution & Retail

Arts:

- Fine arts, photography - Performing art: music,

dance, theatre - Recreation centres,

organisations of cultural events

- Fine arts, photography - Production of

performing arts: music, dance, theatre,

reproduction and publishing of recordings - Recreation centres,

event halls

- Auctions, art libraries, art galleries and exhibition spaces, museums, shops - Theatres, concert halls,

event halls, CD stores - Recreation centres,

organisations of cultural events, event halls

Media and Entertainment:

- Film: scenario- and scriptwriting, pre-production

- Production of radio and television programmes - Writing: novels, poetry,

non-fiction - Journalism

- Film production, including support activities

- Production of radio and television programmes - Publishers and book

printers

- Film distribution, cinemas, movie theatres, video stores

- Broadcasters

- Publisher and printers of

newspapers - Public libraries, bookshops, magazines and newspapers

Creative Services:

- Design, fashion-design, Graphic design

- Gaming, New Media - Architecture, urban

design

- Advertisement

- Manufacturing of furniture, clothes, eyeglasses, cars, etc. - Gaming, new media - General civil and

construction, project development - Printers - Trade in clothing, eyeglasses, furniture, cars, etc.

- Trade in computers and software

- Project development, sales of real estate, heritage

- Other advertising services

2.2.2. Cultural Entrepreneurship

Kok-14

II government. Up to then the creative sector was merely financed by subsidies. One of his ideals was to reduce the dependence of the creative sector on these government subsidies and create room for a personal input. In his eyes, culture makers and mediators had to be better equipped for a society in which market forces became of bigger importance. He suggested a more entrepreneurial attitude in the creative sector as a solution. Additional, he defined four different types of cultural entrepreneurs (Van der Ploeg, 1999): the entrepreneur that is interested in the creative sector because he or she wants to earn money (1); the entrepreneur that believes in the special meaning of his or her cultural product, that is alert on demand and supply and alert on developments that have the potential to increase the sales of the product (2); the leader of a cultural institution that made an art out of lobbying (3) and; the culture creator that sees the government as a natural moneylender (4). These types differ in their degree of entrepreneurship, with type one and two being more entrepreneurial than type three and four. Ryclef Rienstra, chairman of the VandenEnde Foundation, criticizes these somewhat cynical characterizations of Van der Ploeg (1999). He believes that the concept of cultural entrepreneurship expands too much (Rienstra, 2004). In contrast with Van der Ploeg (1999), Rienstra does not recognize lobbying of a cultural institution or depending on governmental financial injections as typical entrepreneurial behaviour, and in particular not as cultural entrepreneurship. Although he acknowledges that earning money cannot be the primary incentive to become a cultural entrepreneur, this does not mean that the cultural entrepreneur has to operate like a financial kamikaze-pilot. The responsibility for making money out of art should lie on the shoulders of the artists themselves. The cultural entrepreneur himself must undertake the actions to attract the potential audience for his art form and he should know how to attract an audience with a price or an entrance fee that suits the product or service that is delivered. Rienstra himself (2006) defines a cultural entrepreneur as a producer of an art form that attempts to interest an audience as big as possible while striving to balance the exploitation of its enterprise.

15

advocates that the creative sector should be less dependent on governmental subsidies. Financing has to shift from the government to the market. He calls this the third sphere consisting of: self-financing, generating goodwill, making use of volunteers and partnerships. This demands a more entrepreneurial attitude.

In conclusion, cultural entrepreneurs differ from conventional entrepreneurs because they pay attention to both the artistic value of their product and the wish to maximise profits and minimalize costs. Both the definitions of Rienstra (2006) and Klamer (2006) are used as a starting point in this research. However, it is believed by the author that these definitions are too broad and therefore they do not suit this research completely. The reason for this is that the existing definitions of a cultural entrepreneur do not specify precisely in which links of the value chain of the creative sector entrepreneurs are classified as cultural entrepreneurs. To prevent the sample from being too general and the results to be impractical, it is important to define a narrower definition. Therefore, the definitions of a cultural entrepreneur of Rienstra (2006) and Klamer (2006) are combined with the narrow definition of the creative sector (Marlet & Van Woerkens, 2005) to develop a new definition. The definition of a cultural entrepreneur used in this research is then as follows:

" A cultural entrepreneur is the initial creator of an art form that is able to attract customers for his product or service and to balance the exploitation of its enterprise without compromising his

artistic mission and artistic integrity "

2.3 The Entrepreneur Scan (E-Scan)

The E-Scan has a central role in this paper since it is used as the instrument to determine and compare the characteristics and capabilities of the cultural entrepreneur. In the following section the E-scan will be explained in detail. Propositions that relate the E-Scan to the cultural entrepreneur will be provided as well.

The initial idea for the E-Scan was developed in 1995 when Martijn Driessen wrote his Master Thesis in the field of business administration. At the time, general personality tests like The Big

Five Factor Model (Hoekstra, Ormel en De Fruyt, 1993) and the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator

16

(Driessen, 2010). The E-Scan is exploited by Entrepreneur Consultancy BV, a company founded by Driessen.

What exactly is the E-scan? The E-Scan is an online psychometric assessment tool which evaluates the participants against ten key entrepreneurial characteristics and capabilities, researched and proven to be the most prominent for successful entrepreneurs1_{. By answering} 111 questions about their personality on a 7-point Likert scale, (potential) entrepreneurs gain insight in their own traits and capabilities (Driessen & Zwart, 2006). By buying the personalized test report, the participant is enabled to compare his scores with a norm profile of the particular branch in which he operates. The participant also has the possibility to receive 360° feedback from three selected colleagues, friends or family members in order to provide a wider perspective. When the test is finished, the results are visualized in a spider web model in which the norm profile and the test profile are drawn. This information is useful when deciding whether to start a business or not, or to delay the start or to hire expertise (Driessen & Zwart, 2006). Besides for personal purposes, the E-Scan is proven to be a useful instrument for organizations and institutions who focus on entrepreneurs. Among the users are the Dutch Chamber of Commerce, the UWV and the Rabobank. Currently the E-Scan is used in several countries by several organisations and numerous individuals.

The E-Scan aims to determine the competences of an entrepreneur by measuring seven characteristics or traits and three capabilities of the individual. The seven characteristics are need for achievement, need for autonomy, need for power, social orientation (representing the need for affiliation), self-belief (representing internal locus of control), endurance and risk taking propensity. The three capabilities are market awareness, creativity and flexibility. The difference between characteristics and capabilities is that characteristics are factual while capabilities are easier to learn and to change (Nyström, 1979; Driessen & Zwart, 2006). The result of the E-Scan is also reflected on the four thinking styles of Herrmann (1996): the pioneer, the salesperson, the manager and the expert. However, since this research aims to reveal and compare the characteristics and capabilities of the cultural entrepreneur, the thinking styles are not elaborated on in this paper. Hence, no literature review will be done on this subject.

The original norm profile for the E-Scan indicates how the characteristics and capabilities should look like for the perfect entrepreneur, according to Driessen & Zwart (2006). This norm profile is recently updated in a master thesis titled An evaluation and update of the E-Scan entrepreneur

test by Lieuwe Oosterling (2009), written at the University of Groningen. Most of the differences

between the original and updated profile are small. The only characteristic with a major

17

difference is the need for power. This is not surprising, since the fact that literature about the perfect level of need for power is also not consistent (Van Spijker, 2012). The most recent norm profile consists of seven characteristics and three capabilities as is visualized in figure 12. In this figure the seven characteristics and three capabilities are reflected. The norm profile is represented by the blue line. The orange plane is an example of what a profile of a test person may look like.

Figure 1: E-Scan norm profile for a conventional entrepreneur

Since a norm profile only gives an impression of the ideal situation, it is not realistic to assume that this profile is representative for the average Dutch entrepreneur. To provide a more representative image of the Dutch entrepreneur the average outcome of a random selected sample of participants from January 2010 to June 2012 of the E-Scan for Entrepreneurs is used (N= 570). The seven characteristics of the original, updated and average E-Scan profile are presented in Table 2. The aim of this research is to compare cultural entrepreneurs in the different sub-sectors of the creative sector with conventional entrepreneurs. Therefore the average E-Scan profile will be used as the input for comparison.

18

Table 2: E-Scan Characteristics

Characteristic Original Norm Profile

Updated Norm Profile

Average Entrepreneur

Need for Achievement 8.0 8.0 8,1

Need for Autonomy 8.0 8.2 6,7

Need for Power 7.0 5.1 6,2

Need for Affiliation (Social Orientation) 8.1 7.7 7,6

Internal Locus of Control (Self Belief) 8.0 8.2 7,0

Endurance 8.0 8.7 7,6

Risk-Taking Propensity 7.4 7.5 5,5

Also the capabilities of the cultural entrepreneur are investigated. Table 3 provides an overview of the three tested capabilities for the original, updated and average E-Scan profile.

Table 3: E-Scan Capabilities

Capability Original Norm Profile Updated Norm Profile Average Entrepreneur Market Awareness 7.5 8.4 7,2 Creativity 7.0 8.3 8,1 Flexibility 8.4 9.0 7,4

2.4 Characteristics

19

Understanding of personality has enriched our appreciation of the entrepreneur. However, there is no real evidence to suggest that there is a single entrepreneurial personality. (Wickham, 2006) Nevertheless, the literature on entrepreneurship makes a distinction between two types of approaches that differentiate successful entrepreneurs from unsuccessful entrepreneurs: the environmental approaches and the psychological approaches. On the one hand the psychological approaches emphasize the tendency of individuals with certain psychological characteristics to seek the types of challenges and rewards which characterize the lives of entrepreneurs. On the other the environmental (push) approaches comprise a complementary or possibly competing set of reasons to the psychological trait view. These approaches share the view that negative conditions in previous work experiences are major factors influencing the decision to start one's own business (Brockhaus, 1980a). The aim of this study is to determine and to compare the characteristics and capabilities of the cultural entrepreneur. That is why the psychological or characteristic or trait approach is followed.

A lot of studies have examined characteristics of successful entrepreneurs (McCelland, 1961; Brockhaus, 1980a; Begley & Boyd, 1987; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996; Nandram & Samson, 2000). A number of characteristics are considered in almost each of these studies. These are the need for achievement, internal locus of control and risk-taking propensity. In some studies other characteristics are examined as well. These are the need for autonomy, the need for power, tolerance of ambiguity, need for affiliation and endurance. On average, successful entrepreneurs score higher on these characteristics than those who do not have a (successful) business of their own (Driessen & Zwart, 2006).

In the following section, the personality traits based on the E-Scan of Driessen (2005) will be reviewed and elaborated on. As mentioned before, these traits or characteristics are: need for achievement (1), internal locus of control (2), risk taking propensity (3), need for autonomy (4), need for power (5), need for affiliation (6) and endurance (7). The elaboration on each characteristic will be concluded with one or more propositions (if necessary, one for each sub-sector) which compares the cultural entrepreneur with the conventional entrepreneur.

2.4.1 Need for Achievement

20

(3), to overcome obstacles and attain a high standard (4), to excel one’s self (5), to rival and surpass others (6), and to increase self-regard by the successful exercise of talent (7).

More specifically, in the field of entrepreneurship, need for achievement is the most researched (success-) factor. One of the pioneers and leading authors on this topic is David McClellend (Driessen, 2005). McClellend advocates that need for achievement is the single factor that motivates a man to become an entrepreneur (McClellend, 1961). Other studies support McCellend’s 1965 hypothesis that successful entrepreneurs possess a high achievement motivation (Driessen 2005: Komives, 1972; Ahmed, 1985; Watson, 1996). Also people scoring higher on need for achievement are also more likely to exploit entrepreneurial opportunities in general for several reasons (Shane, 2003). First, the exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities requires solving novel and ill-specified problems. The willingness and ability to solve such problems demands an orientation toward meeting challenges, a characteristic of people who are high on need for achievement (Harper, 1996). Second, the exploitation of opportunities involves goal setting, planning and information gathering. Achievement-oriented people have a strong tendency to plan, to establish future goals, to gather information, and to learn (Miner, 2000). Third, need for achievement generates drive to put forth effort to bring ideas into reality. As a result, it increases the likelihood that a person will sustain goal-directed activity over a long period of time (Wu, 1989).

21

Proposition 1.1: The need for achievement of a cultural entrepreneur within the arts subsector is lower than the need for achievement of the average E-Scan profile.

Proposition 1.2: The need for achievement of a cultural entrepreneur within the media & entertainment subsector and creative services subsector is comparable with the need for achievement of the average E-scan profile.

2.4.2 Need for Autonomy

Need for autonomy is an aspect of personality in which people prefer to engage in independent action rather than action involving others (Shane, 2005). Other research indicates that one’s need for autonomy indicates the extent to which the individual wishes to experience freedom, independence and discretion in both scheduling and determining the procedures while completing tasks and carrying out activities (Buelens et al, 2006).

22

So far, no scientific literature on the need for achievement of cultural entrepreneurs has been published. However, a publication of Klamer (2006) indicates that successful cultural entrepreneurs are persuasive in the sense that they are able to convince other artists to work with them, bring about interest in the art, get people involved (e.g. volunteers), and are able to generate the necessary funds, including donations and the like (Klamer, 2006). This implicates that successful cultural entrepreneurs are willing to cooperate with others in order to be successful and are willing to give away some of their independence in that sense. This is in contrast with the previous arguments about conventional entrepreneurs. It is not expected by the author that this will differ within the sub-sectors. Therefore the second hypothesis is:

Proposition 2: The need for autonomy of a cultural entrepreneur is lower than the need for autonomy of the average E-Scan profile.

2.4.3 Need for power

The need for power reflects an individual’s desire to influence, coach, teach or encourage others to achieve. People with a high need for power like to work and are concerned with discipline and self-respect (Buelens et al, 2005). Also for this characteristic counts that it is popularized by psychologist David McClelland in 1961, who builds on the theory of Henry Murray (1938). People who exhibit need for power tendencies are most satisfied by seeing their environment move in a certain direction, due to their involvements (McClelland, 1961). For example, most corporate leaders seek high level positions in their company in order to control the direction in which it is moving.

23

Unfortunately, no research has been done on the need for power of cultural entrepreneurs. However, as noted before, scientific research on cultural entrepreneurship indicates that (Klamer, 2006): their artistic content is their passion and commitment; everything else, including economics, is subsidiary (1), and that they are persuasive in the sense that they are able to convince good artists to work with them, bring about interest in the art, get people involved (e.g. volunteers), and are able to generate the necessary funds, including donations and the like (2). So, since everything besides their artistic content seems to have less priority for cultural entrepreneurs, it is expected that need for power plays a minor role for the cultural entrepreneur. Besides, the fact that cooperation is an important factor for the cultural entrepreneur implicates that he is not in the position to attract too much power to himself. No differences between subsectors are expected. Therefore the third hypothesis is:

Proposition 3: The need for power of a cultural entrepreneur is lower than the need for power of the average E-Scan profile.

2.4.4 Need for Affiliation (Social Orientation)

People with a high need for affiliation prefer to spend more time maintaining social relationships, joining groups and wanting to be loved. Individuals that score high on this need are not the most effective leaders and managers because they have a hard time making difficult decisions without worrying about being disliked (Buelens et al, 2005). Some research suggests that people possess a basic desire to form and maintain a few lasting, positive and important interpersonal relationships. O’Connor & Rosenblood (1996) provide a summary of research which supports this premise. Surprisingly, these researchers note that both psychological and physical health problems are higher among people who lack social attachments (O’Connor & Rosenblood, 1996).

Nevertheless, not everyone has a high need to affiliate. In this light, some researchers speak of a

lack of need for affiliation or to put it more simple a lack of being social (Buelens et al, 2005). The

negative impact of affiliation on successful entrepreneurship is underlined by a number of researchers (Driessen 2005: Bellu, 1987; Hornaday, 1970). Yukl (1989) makes a distinction between persons with a low, moderate and high need for affiliation. A person low in affiliation is uncomfortable in socializing with others and may lack the motivation or energy to build up necessary business contacts. Moderate affiliation is related to strong management, since strong needs lead to avoidance of unpopular decisions. People with a strong need for affiliation are reluctant to let work interfere with harmonious relationships (Driessen, 2005: Yukl, 1989). Driessen (2005) adds that the positive correlation of moderate affiliation and effective management also counts for entrepreneurship. It is a combination of being focused on others

24

others. Successful entrepreneurs are aware of the value of people and networks. However, they are able to put their social needs on the side and to focus on what is good for their enterprise (Driessen, 2005).

No scientific research has been done on the need of affiliation of cultural entrepreneurs. However, the research of Klamer (2006) also sheds light on what role this characteristic plays for the cultural entrepreneur. Since the cultural entrepreneur needs to cooperate in order to keep in business (Klamer, 2006), it is likely that he is forced to make use of his social skills and network a lot. It is expected that this effect is stronger than for the conventional entrepreneur. Besides that, it is likely that the cultural entrepreneur is looking for recognition for his work. That is why it is expected that he wants people to like him and his work. It is not expected that this will differ significantly between the subsectors though. Therefore the fourth hypothesis is:

Proposition 4: The need for affiliation of a cultural entrepreneur is higher than the need for affiliation of the average E-Scan profile.

2.4.5 Internal Locus of Control (Self Belief)

Individuals vary in terms of how much personal responsibility they take for their behaviour and its consequences. Julian Rotter, a personality researcher, identified a dimension of personality he labels locus of control (Buelens et al, 2005). Locus of control is a person’s belief that he can influence the environment in which he is found (Rotter 1966). People who believe they control the events and consequences that affect their lives are said to possess an internal locus of control. They trust in their capacity to influence their environment and assume that they can control events in their lives by effort and skill (Buelens et al, 2005).

Brockhaus (1980a) is one of the first to relate locus of control to entrepreneurship. In an influential paper he concludes that entrepreneurs have a more internal locus of control (Brockhaus, 1980a). This finding is confirmed by other research. For example, Shapero (1975) and Caird (1991) both showed that firm founders have more internal locus of control than other groups of people, while Bowen and Hisrich (1986) showed this result for female firm founders, and Durand (1975) found it for African-American firm founders (Shane, 2005). Other theory supports this finding by adding that people with an internal locus of control also perform better at entrepreneurial activities than people with an external locus of control (Shane, 2005). Many entrepreneurs eventually succeed because their internal locus of control helps them to overcome setbacks and disappointments. They see themselves as masters of their own fate and not simply lucky (Buelens et al, 2005).

25

locus of control of a cultural entrepreneur and a conventional entrepreneur. This makes it hard to make any predictions. Therefore the fifth hypothesis is:

Proposition 5: The internal locus of control of the cultural entrepreneur is comparable with the internal locus of control of the average E-Scan profile.

2.4.6 Endurance

Freely translated, endurance stands for how much perseverance an individual has. An individual who possesses endurance moves on, despite setbacks or objections. Also on the long-run. Successful entrepreneurs have a lot of endurance (Driessen, 2005). Although it seems to be regarded as important by most scientists, literature about endurance in the field of entrepreneurship is very scarce. Reason for this is that it is seen as a logical aspect which causes that an explanation or discussion is often lacking (Van Spijker, 2012).

Wickham (2006) however mentions resilience, a concept similar to endurance, as one of the characteristics of a successful entrepreneur. Not everything goes right all the time. In fact, failure may be experienced more often than success. Entrepreneurs must not only pick themselves up after things have gone wrong but also learn positively from the experience and use that learning to increase the chances of success the next time around (Wickham, 2006). So, instead of giving up after setbacks, the successful entrepreneur needs endurance to repack himself, learn from his mistakes and to move on.

No literature on the endurance of cultural entrepreneurs has been written. However, Klamer (2006) states that good cultural entrepreneurs have vision, courage, hope and faith (Klamer 2006). Endurance can be interpreted or translated as an aspect that results from having vision, courage, hope and faith. However, too little is known about this characteristic for cultural entrepreneurs to generate expectations about differences with conventional entrepreneurs, especially divided per subsector. Therefore the sixth hypothesis is:

Proposition 6: The endurance of a cultural entrepreneur is comparable with the endurance of the average E-Scan profile.

2.4.7 Risk-taking propensity

26

enterprise can result in major losses to the entrepreneur as an individual and could jeopardize his future standard of living. Moreover, because the entrepreneur is likely to have devoted himself to the venture at a personal level, the failure of the venture becomes, in effect, the failure of the individual and therefore can have major emotional consequences (Brockhaus, 1980b). So, people exploiting entrepreneurial opportunities should be higher in risk-taking propensity since risk bearing is a fundamental part of entrepreneurship (Shane, 2005).

There are different opinions about whether their risk-taking propensity differentiates the entrepreneur form the non-entrepreneur. For example, in his 1980 paper Brockhaus (1980b) investigates the differences in risk-taking propensity between entrepreneurs and managers. The major conclusion of this paper is that the level of risk-taking propensity does not distinguish new entrepreneurs either from managers or from the general population (Brockhaus, 1980b). In contrast, research from Begley & Boyd (1987) compares 147 small business founders with 92 small business managers and shows that the founders have higher risk-taking propensity than the managers. Results and findings of Seth & Sen (1995), Stewart et al (1999) and Cromie & O’Donaghue (1992) confirm this conclusion. Also a meta-analysis of twelve previous studies revealed that people who exploit opportunities have a higher risk-taking propensity than managers, despite differences in the way opportunity exploitation was measured across the different studies (Stewart & Roth, 2001). Miner & Raju (2004) advocate the opposite. In a later paper Stewart & Roth (2004) responded by concluding that they still value risk-taking propensity as a tool to help clarify entrepreneurial behaviour. Nevertheless the discussion on this issue still goes forth.

No research has been conducted on the risk-taking propensity of cultural entrepreneurs. However, it is suggested that, taking into account its cultural mission, the successful cultural entrepreneur strives for continuity and therefor takes risks. He does not carelessly throw himself into risky adventures though. Instead, he carefully calculates its financial risk and seeks to balance the operation of his business. The government is not the obvious safety net that covers such risks (Rienstra, 2006). Exploiting entrepreneurial opportunity causes the cultural entrepreneur to enter the market. Van der Ploeg (1999) advocates that doing so alone already involves taking risks. In this respect, the cultural entrepreneur does not differ from the conventional entrepreneur, since risk-taking is fundamental to entrepreneurship. Therefor the seventh hypothesis is:

27

2.5 Capabilities

Now the propositions concerning the characteristics of the cultural entrepreneur have been set, this paper continues with the determination of the propositions concerning the capabilities of the cultural entrepreneur. As mentioned before, the difference between characteristics and capabilities is that characteristics are factual while capabilities are easier to learn and to change (Nyström, 1979; Driessen & Zwart, 2006). Originally, Driessen & Zwart (2006) presented seven capabilities. Since these capabilities are more or less related to the phases of a company, the company lifecycle, they are divided into two groups: the early phase capabilities and the mature phase capabilities. The early phase capabilities are (Driessen & Zwart, 2006): market awareness (1), creativity (2) and flexibility (3). The mature phase capabilities are (Driessen & Zwart, 2006): leadership (1), organising and planning (2), motivating (3) and financial controlling (4). However, because the E-Scan focuses on (starting) entrepreneurs which are in the early phase of their company lifecycle, the E-Scan only measures the early phase capabilities. In the following section these capabilities will be elaborated on. The elaboration on each capability will be concluded with a proposition (if necessary, one for each sub-sector) which compares the cultural entrepreneur with the conventional entrepreneur.

2.5.1 Market Awareness

In business, market awareness exists when thought and action are focused on consumer preferences, competitors and distribution channels (Webster, 1994). More specific, Driessen (2005) defines market awareness as one’s ability to empathize with the needs of (potential) customers and to create a link from there to their own business operations. Successful entrepreneurs are responding to the specific needs of a clearly defined target group (Driessen, 2005).

28

(cultural) content, being about the art itself and the creative process is essential to the cultural entrepreneur. The economics and the market on the other hand have to be seen as instruments for them in order to realize their cultural values. Eventually, the real challenge for the cultural entrepreneur lies in contributing to the common good that art is by having their work qualified as art. A cultural good or an artistic process only has cultural value if it is common property in some sense. For example, people can compose music in their leisure time, but if nobody else hears it the music does not circulate as such (Klamer, 2005). Rienstra (2006) agrees that the artistic integrity should always come first for the cultural entrepreneur. Nevertheless he argues that the cultural entrepreneur should put maximal effort into reaching the audience that is potentially interested in the art-form and to pay a price for it that is justified. Of course the size of this potential audience differs per art form (Rienstra, 2006).

No scientific literature has been written on the differences between market awareness of cultural entrepreneurs within the different subsectors of the creative sector. Due to that, no funded expectations can be provided on this topic. However, it is expected by the author that the cultural entrepreneurs in the arts subsector have a lower market awareness than conventional entrepreneurs. Reason for this is that the cultural entrepreneurs in this subsector are expected to focus more on the cultural content of their activities instead of the economics and marketing behind it, since their activities are concentrated in the field of fine arts and performing arts. The cultural entrepreneurs within the media & entertainment subsector and the creative services subsector on the other hand are expected to have a comparable score on market awareness compared to conventional entrepreneurs. This is believed because their activities seem to have more similarities with the activities of conventional entrepreneurs, especially in terms of (economic) performance (see table 1). Therefore the eighth hypotheses are:

Proposition 8.1: The market awareness of a cultural entrepreneur within the arts subsector is lower than the market awareness of the average E-Scan profile.

Proposition 8.2: The market awareness of a cultural entrepreneur within the media & entertainment subsector and the creative services subsector is comparable with the market awareness of the average E-scan profile.

2.5.2 Creativity

29

Maslow (1954). Besides that, Rogers concludes that creativity increases when a person is more open to what he experiences (Rogers, 1959). Building on these findings Nyström (1979) researched the relation between creativity of an individual and creativity of an enterprise. He concluded that individual creativity is regarded as a basic requirement for company creativity, and thus directly responsible for successful innovation (Driessen, 2005: Nyström, 1979).

Note that it is important not to confuse artistic creativity with entrepreneurial creativity. Since this research focuses on the characteristics and capabilities of cultural entrepreneurs, the creativity aimed at is the one with an entrepreneurial nature and not with an artistic nature. However, the argument of Nyström (1979), that individual creativity is regarded as a basic requirement for company creativity, suggests that cultural entrepreneurs are also more creative in the entrepreneurial sense, since their individual creativity is very high. Klamer (2006) also points in this direction by concluding that cultural entrepreneurs are creative in terms of the artistic content but also of the way in organizing the conversation and arranging the finances of their activities. Since there is no literature on the differences in creativity within the subsectors and there is no other literature that suggests that there are differences, these are not expected either. That is why the ninth hypothesis is:

Proposition 9: The creativity of a cultural entrepreneur is higher than the creativity of the average E-Scan profile.

2.5.3 Flexibility

Personal flexibility contains the control of four basic activities (Kor et al, 1991): perceiving (1), interpreting (2), anticipating (3) and responding (4). These activities describe the process of action – reaction. The way and speed of response determines the degree of flexibility. This is based on two pillars: the ability to change (1) and the ability to resist (2). The ability to change concerns the ability to change as well as the will to change. The ability to resist concerns the stability against change, in order that not every change is met (Driessen, 2005; Kor et al, 1992). Flexibility is based on the ability to adapt. Successful entrepreneurs respond to changes that they perceive in their environment, like new customer preferences or new competitors on the market. They interpret chances or treats on their effect and adapt their (business) plan on that (Driessen, 2005).

30

not expected since the skills exercised in this sectors seem to be broadly applicable which gives no reason to suspect a different score than the average E-Scan profile. Therefore the tenth hypotheses are:

Proposition 10.1: The flexibility of a cultural entrepreneur in the arts subsector is lower than the flexibility of the average E-Scan profile.

Proposition 10.2: The flexibility of a cultural entrepreneur in the media & entertainment subsector and the creative services subsector is comparable to the flexibility of the average E-Scan profile.

2.6 Conceptual Model

31

Figure 2 – Conceptual Model

Need for Achievement

Need for Autonomy

Creativity

Market Awareness

Risk-taking Propensity

Endurance

Internal Locus of Control

Need for Power

Need for Affiliation

Flexibility

Subsector

Arts

Subsector

Creative

Services

Subsector

Media &

Entertainment

Cultural

Entrepreneurship

-

(H8.1)

-

(H1.1)

-

(H10.1)

=

(H1.2)

-

(H2)

-

(H3)

=

(H5)

+

(H4)

=

(H7)

=

(H6)

=

(H8.2)

+

(H9)

=

(H10.2)

Differences with the average E-Scan Profile

32

3. Methodology

In this chapter the methodology of this study will be elaborated on. The goal of this methodology is to answer the main research questions of this study: “What are the characteristics and capabilities of a cultural entrepreneur and what are the differences with the conventional entrepreneur?” and “What are the differences among cultural entrepreneurs within the subsectors of the creative sector?” Based on Cooper & Schindler (2006), the following topics will be discussed: research method, research criteria, data collection and data analysis.

3.1 Research Method

The instrument that is used for the data collection of this study is the E-Scan. The E-Scan is a fully structured online based test for (starting) entrepreneurs. By answering 111 questions participants gain insight in their entrepreneurial characteristics and capabilities. Especially for cultural entrepreneurs a customized version of the E-Scan is developed: the CreativeScan. As well as the E-Scan the CreativeScan is an online based test which can be found on the following webpage: www.creativescan.nl. The Creative Scan is an initiative of Mariël Voogel in cooperation with Martijn Driessen, the developer of the E-Scan. The CreativeScan is similar to the E-Scan and measures the same underlying variables. However, an important difference is that the CreativeScan categorizes participating cultural entrepreneurs into the three subsectors of the creative industry: arts (1), media and entertainment (2) and creative services (3). Since this research aims to reveal the differences between cultural entrepreneurs within the different subsectors it is very convenient to use the CreativeScan instead of the conventional E-Scan. The Creative Scan is a relatively young variant of the E-Scan. Since it was launched very recently, only a handful of people have used the CreativeScan so far. This research project is used to bring the CreativeScan under the attention of its potential users.

Due to its recent launch, the existing dataset derived from test persons that already did the CreativeScan is too small to use for this research. Therefore a standalone data collection is required. For this research Dutch cultural entrepreneurs are invited to do the CreativeScan. They represents the sample of this study. The test results of each creative subsector (arts, media and entertainment, creative services) are compared to the average E-Scan profile of conventional entrepreneurs form January 2010 to June 2012.

3.2 Participant Criteria

33

" A cultural entrepreneur is the initial creator of an art form that is able to attract customers for his product or service and to balance the exploitation of its enterprise without compromising his

artistic mission and artistic integrity "

In addition, only the owner of a company is marked as a cultural entrepreneur. Also two additional criteria have to be met: the participant is active as a cultural entrepreneur for at least two years (1) and the participant is, at the time of testing, registered at the Dutch chamber of commerce (Kamer van Koophandel)(2). It is believed by the author that experienced cultural entrepreneurs provide a better picture of the underlying characteristics and capabilities of cultural entrepreneurs than inexperienced entrepreneurs. That is why at least two years of experience as an entrepreneur is required. This may be counted from the day that the first entrepreneurial activities were started and not especially from the day that the cultural entrepreneur was registered at the chamber of commerce. However, to make sure that the participant indeed is a cultural entrepreneur at the moment of testing, he has to be registered in the trade register. Of course, it is desirable to reach as much as respondents as possible. However, because of the difficulty to reach potential respondents and to convince them to participate in this study (see section 3.3) and time constraints the sample size is targeted at 20 per subsector which brings the desired total sample size to 60.

3.3 Data Collection

34

that the participant was added to the sample and that he could do the test for free. When the participant did not do the test within one week, a reminder was sent. This first recruitment round resulted in 16 completed tests.

In order to increase the participant rate more informal canals were used. Within the personal network of the researcher a recruitment message was spread (appendix 2) under 12 cultural entrepreneurs. Also Mariël Voogel send similar emails within her personal network to 10 cultural entrepreneurs. When potential participants reported themselves, it was also checked if they met the participant requirements. If yes, they were actually invited to do the test. When the participant did not do the test within one week, a reminder was sent. This second approach resulted in 10 more completed tests.

Since the participant target had not been met yet a third recruitment round was launched. This third round was the most intensive. Cultural entrepreneurs within the network of a relative of the researcher were approached. This relative and her partner both completed a study at the Hogeschool voor de Kunsten Utrecht (HKU), the former finished a fashion design study while the latter finished a graphic design study. Both are working within the creative industry now, the former as a fashion designer and the latter as a graphic designer. Because the author believed that a more personal approach would lead to more response, their broad network was used to recruit participants for this study in a rather personal way. On forehand it was checked if the potential participant fulfilled the participant criteria. If so, a personal email was sent to these cultural entrepreneurs accompanied by the login code for the CreativeScan. When the targeted participant did not respond within one week, a reminder was sent. In total 31 people were contacted in this round. This approach proved to be the most effective since it resulted in 22 reactions.

In order to reach the target of 60 participants, 15 test-results of people that did the CreativeScan on the regular basis during the data collection period were added to the sample. Altogether 63 cultural entrepreneurs were tested. These were divided between the subsectors as follows: 26 in the arts subsector, 9 in the media and entertainments subsector and 28 in the creative services subsector.

3.4 Data Analysis

35

36

4. Results

In this chapter the results of this study are presented. This study reveals that there are both similarities and differences between conventional entrepreneurs and cultural entrepreneurs. Also, cultural entrepreneurs across the different subsectors of the cultural sector differ on specific characteristics and capabilities. Table 4 provides an overview of the average E-Scan score of the conventional entrepreneur and the average scores of the cultural entrepreneurs on the CreativeScan. It also indicates the differences between the average E-Scan score and the scores on the CreativeScan. The differences that are significant are marked with a ⌧. The formulated hypotheses are tested with a confidence level of 95%. See appendix III for the SPSS score tables. Every characteristic and capability will be addressed below.

Table 4: Average test scores

Characteristic Average E-Scan Score Score Subsector Arts Score Subsector Media and Entertainment Score Subsector Creative Services

Need for Achievement 8,1 7,7 (-0,4) 7,6 (-0,5) 8,0 (-0,1)

Need for Autonomy 6,7 6,5 (-0,2) 6,3 (-0,4) 6,6 (-0,1)

Need for Power 6,2 5,2 (-1,0)⌧ 5,9 (-0,3) 5,3 (-0,9)⌧

Need for Affiliation (Social orientation)

7,6 6,6 (-1,0)⌧ 7,0 (-0,6) 6,9 (-0,7)⌧

Internal locus of Control (Self Belief) 7,0 5,9 (-1,1)⌧ 6,0 (-1,0)⌧ 6,5 (-0,5)⌧ Endurance 7,6 6,8 (-0,8)⌧ 6,7 (-0,9)⌧ 7,2 (-0,4) Risk-Taking Propensity 5,5 6,0 (+0,5) 5,4 (-0,1) 5,8 (+0,3) Capability: Market-Awareness 7,2 5,8 (-1,4)⌧ (6,1) (-1,1)⌧ 6,3 (-0,9)⌧ Creativity 8,1 8,3 (+0,2) 7,3 (-0,8) (8,4 (+0,3) Flexibility 7,4 6,8 (-0,6)⌧ 7,4 (0,0) 7,2 (-0,2)

Need for Achievement

37

average E-Scan profile. This also counts for the need for achievement of cultural entrepreneurs within the subsectors media & entertainment and creative services. This is in line with Hypothesis 1.2 which is therefore is accepted. Apparently, cultural entrepreneurs in general do not differ from conventional entrepreneurs on this point, regardless the subsector in which they operate.

Need for Autonomy

The average E-Scan score on need for autonomy is 6,7. The average scores of the cultural entrepreneurs on the CreativeScan divided per subsector are respectively 6,5 (arts), 6,3 (media and entertainment) and 6,6 (creative services). These differences are not significant, and therefore Hypothesis 2 is rejected. In contrast with this hypothesis, this means that the need for autonomy of cultural entrepreneurs is comparable to that of conventional entrepreneurs.

Need for Power

The average E-Scan score on need for power is 6,2. The average scores of the cultural entrepreneurs on the CreativeScan divided per subsector are respectively 5,2 (arts), 5,9 (media and entertainment) and 5,3 (Creative Services). For the subsectors Arts and Creative Services, these differences are significant. However for the subsector media and entertainment it is not. This means that the need for power of cultural entrepreneurs within the subsector arts and creative services is significantly lower than that of conventional entrepreneurs while it is comparable for the cultural entrepreneurs within the subsector media and entertainment. Therefore Hypothesis 3 can only be partly supported.

Need for Affiliation (Social Orientation)

The average E-Scan score on need for affiliation is 7,6. The average scores of the cultural entrepreneurs on the CreativeScan divided per subsector are respectively 6,6 (arts), 7,0 (media and entertainment) and 6,9 (creative services). In contrast with Hypothesis 4 the need for affiliation of cultural entrepreneurs is lower than that of conventional entrepreneurs. For the subsector arts and creative services this difference is significant. Since these results are in contrast with Hypothesis 4, it is rejected.

Internal Locus of Control (Self Belief)

38

subsectors arts and media and entertainment is significantly lower than that of the conventional entrepreneurs.

Endurance

The average E-Scan score on endurance is 7,6. The average scores of the cultural entrepreneurs on the CreativeScan divided per subsector are respectively 6,8 (arts), 6,7 (media and entertainment) and 7,2 (creative services). For the subsectors arts and media and entertainment these differences are significant. Therefore Hypothesis 6 is partly supported. In line with this hypothesis, the endurance of cultural entrepreneurs within the creative services subsector is comparable with that of the conventional entrepreneur. However, in contrast with this hypothesis, the endurance of cultural entrepreneurs within the subsectors arts and media and entertainment is significantly lower than that of the conventional entrepreneur.

Risk-Taking Propensity

The average E-Scan score on risk-taking propensity is 5,5. The average scores of the cultural entrepreneurs on the CreativeScan divided per subsector are respectively 6,0 (arts), 5,4 (media and entertainment) and 5,8 (creative services). Since there are no significant differences, Hypothesis 7 is supported. This means that the risk-taking propensity of cultural entrepreneurs is comparable to that of conventional entrepreneurs.

Market Awareness

The average E-Scan score on market awareness is 7,2. The average scores of the cultural entrepreneurs on the CreativeScan divided per subsector are respectively 5,8 (arts), 6,1 (media and entertainment) and 6,3 (creative services). These differences are significant. This means that the market awareness of cultural entrepreneurs is in general lower than that of conventional entrepreneurs, regardless the subsector in which they operate. This is in line with Hypothesis 8.1 which is therefore supported. On the other hand this finding contrasts Hypothesis 8.2, which is therefore rejected.

Creativity

The average E-Scan score on creativity is 8,1. The average scores of the cultural entrepreneurs on the CreativeScan divided per subsector are respectively 8,3 (arts), 7,3 (media and entertainment) and 8,4 (creative services). These differences are not significant and therefore Hypothesis 9 is rejected. This means that the creativity of cultural entrepreneurs is comparable to that of conventional entrepreneurs.

Flexibility

39