IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jadmsc/v12y2022i3p97-d881988.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why Were Innovators Motivated to Be Entrepreneurs? An Empirical Study of Taiwanese Start-Ups

Author

Listed:
  • Chia-Liang Hung

    (Department of Information Management, College of Management, National Chi Nan University, Puli 54516, Taiwan)

Abstract

Background: According to the lead user theory, lead users at the front of a market, benefiting significantly from new products, usually have more innovation intension than general users. However, little research depicts the entrepreneurship motivations that drive innovators to become businesspeople. Hence, this study investigates Taiwanese entrepreneurs to fill this gap in the research. Method: This study examines motivations for becoming an entrepreneur from small- and medium-sized enterprises in Taiwan. A multiple regression analysis is used to examine the relationship between lead user inclination and entrepreneurial motivations as well as to test the moderating effect of community involvement. Results: The research results summarise entrepreneurial motivations into five categories: product knowledge advantage, industry expertise, inducements to innovation, career expectations, and benchmarking and indicate the positive moderating effect of community involvement on the association between innovators and entrepreneurs. Conclusions: Additional research is suggested to catalyse motivations to aspire lead users to pursue business success as well as to enhance entrepreneurship education policy. This study contributes to understanding the inclination of lead users towards becoming entrepreneurs and, especially, to emphasise the role of community involvement, which increases the likelihood of innovators to be entrepreneurs.

Suggested Citation

  • Chia-Liang Hung, 2022. "Why Were Innovators Motivated to Be Entrepreneurs? An Empirical Study of Taiwanese Start-Ups," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-14, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jadmsc:v:12:y:2022:i:3:p:97-:d:881988
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/12/3/97/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/12/3/97/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dubini, Paola, 1989. "The influence of motivations and environment on business start-ups: Some hints for public policies," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 4(1), pages 11-26, January.
    2. Samer Faraj & Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa & Ann Majchrzak, 2011. "Knowledge Collaboration in Online Communities," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1224-1239, October.
    3. Franke, Nikolaus & Shah, Sonali, 2003. "How communities support innovative activities: an exploration of assistance and sharing among end-users," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 157-178, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Müller, Felix Claus & Ibert, Oliver, 2014. "(Re-)Sources of Innovation: Understanding and Comparing Innovation Dynamics through the Lens of Communities of Practice," IRS Working Papers 52, Leibniz Institute for Research on Society and Space (IRS).
    2. Zaggl, Michael A., 2017. "Manipulation of explicit reputation in innovation and knowledge exchange communities: The example of referencing in science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(5), pages 970-983.
    3. Adrián Kovács & Bart Looy & Bruno Cassiman, 2015. "Exploring the scope of open innovation: a bibliometric review of a decade of research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 951-983, September.
    4. Christoph Riedl & Tom Grad & Christopher Lettl, 2024. "Competition and Collaboration in Crowdsourcing Communities: What happens when peers evaluate each other?," Papers 2404.14141, arXiv.org.
    5. Ann Majchrzak & Arvind Malhotra, 2016. "Effect of Knowledge-Sharing Trajectories on Innovative Outcomes in Temporary Online Crowds," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 685-703, December.
    6. Lee, Guenwoo & Suzuki, Aya, 2020. "Motivation for information exchange in a virtual community of practice: Evidence from a Facebook group for shrimp farmers," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    7. Parmentier, Guy & Mangematin, Vincent, 2014. "Orchestrating innovation with user communities in the creative industries," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 40-53.
    8. Verena Brinks, 2016. "Situated affect and collective meaning: A community perspective on processes of value creation and commercialization in enthusiast-driven fields," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 48(6), pages 1152-1169, June.
    9. Sheen S. Levine & Michael J. Prietula, 2014. "Open Collaboration for Innovation: Principles and Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 1414-1433, October.
    10. Nikolaus Franke & Peter Keinz & Katharina Klausberger, 2013. "“Does This Sound Like a Fair Deal?”: Antecedents and Consequences of Fairness Expectations in the Individual’s Decision to Participate in Firm Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(5), pages 1495-1516, October.
    11. Julia Bauer & Nikolaus Franke & Philipp Tuertscher, 2016. "Intellectual Property Norms in Online Communities: How User-Organized Intellectual Property Regulation Supports Innovation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 724-750, December.
    12. Rullani, Francesco & Haefliger, Stefan, 2013. "The periphery on stage: The intra-organizational dynamics in online communities of creation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 941-953.
    13. Bitzer, Jürgen & Geishecker, Ingo, 2010. "Who contributes voluntarily to OSS? An investigation among German IT employees," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 165-172, February.
    14. Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa & Ann Majchrzak, 2010. "Research Commentary ---Vigilant Interaction in Knowledge Collaboration: Challenges of Online User Participation Under Ambivalence," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 773-784, December.
    15. Habicht, Hagen & Oliveira, Pedro & Shcherbatiuk, Viktoriia, 2012. "User Innovators: When Patients Set Out to Help Themselves and End Up Helping Many," Die Unternehmung - Swiss Journal of Business Research and Practice, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 66(3), pages 277-295.
    16. Yu-Li Lin & Hsiu-Wen Liu & Fengzeng Xu & Hao Wang, 2016. "Environmental Conditions, Entrepreneur Alertness and Social Capital on Performance," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 9(8), pages 1-13, August.
    17. Shan, Wei & Qiao, Tong & Zhang, Mingli, 2020. "Getting more resources for better performance: The effect of user-owned resources on the value of user-generated content," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    18. Letty, Brigid & Shezi, Zanele & Mudhara, Maxwell, 2012. "An exploration of agricultural grassroots innovation in South Africa and implications for innovation indicator development," MERIT Working Papers 2012-023, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    19. Emmanuel Affum-Osei & Sharon G. Goto & June Chun Yeung & Rong Wang & Hodar Lam & Inusah Abdul-Nasiru & Darius K. S. Chan, 2024. "A cross-cultural study of entrepreneurial motivation and entrepreneurial intentions amongst university students: the roles of individualism and collectivism," Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, Springer;UNESCO Chair in Entrepreneurship, vol. 14(1), pages 1-19, December.
    20. Hau, Yong Sauk & Kang, Minhyung, 2016. "Extending lead user theory to users’ innovation-related knowledge sharing in the online user community: The mediating roles of social capital and perceived behavioral control," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 520-530.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jadmsc:v:12:y:2022:i:3:p:97-:d:881988. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.