DOES CULTURE ENDURE,

OR IS IT MALLEABLE? ISSUES
FOR ENTREPRENEURIAL
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
RITA GUNTHER MCGRATH
IAN C. MACMILLAN
ELENA AI-YUAN YANG
University of Pennsylvania

WILLIAM TSAI
National Central University, Taiwan

This study explores the extent to which social interventions designed to

EXECUTIVE encourage entrepreneurship need to take into account the culture of the
SUMMARY target population. Those who carry out enormously expensive interventions
to encourage entrepreneurship can thus begin to recognize where the
Western model of entrepreneurship must be adapted to take into account
enduring, intractable cultural values. The comparison of values among
Mainland Chinese, Taiwanese and American entrepreneurs provides a special opportunity to explore
this issue. For 50 years severe and unrelenting ideological pressures have been brought to bear on
the base Chinese culture in these two countries. Therefore, we can start to uncover where culture
predominates and where ideology predominates.
Where culture predominates and endures:

l Chinese and American entrepreneurs should show dSfSerent patterns of response

l Taiwanese responses should be similar to Chinese responses

Where culture is eroded rapidly by ideological forces, and is thus relatively malleable:

l Taiwanese and American entrepreneurs should show similar patterns of response

l Taiwanese responses should be more similar to American responses

This study used survey data obtained from entrepreneurs in each of the three countries. Re-
spondents were asked to indicate their degree of agreement to questions relating to 14 dtferent cultural

Address correspondence to Rita Gunther McGrath, Sol C. Snider Entrepreneurial Center, The Wharton
School, Vance Hall, 4th Floor, 3733 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104.
The authors thank the Sol C. Snider Entrepreneurial Center, the Center for Entrepreneurial Studies of New
York University and the Ministry of Education of Taiwan for support. The National Science Council of Taiwan
provided resources for the conduct of the survey in Taiwan. Without Sari Scheinbergs efforts to assemble the
database, this study would not have been possible. Scott Shane and S. Venkataraman provided insightful comments
on the general question of cross-cultural research.

Journal of Business Venturing 7, 441458

0 1992 Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc.. 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010

441
442 R.G. McGRATH ET AL

norms. These questions are related to cultural dimensions first idenriJed by Geert Hofsrede. These
dimensions are:

I. Power Distance-management of inequality between people;

2. Individualism-the relationship between individuals and collectives;
3. Uncertainty Avoidance-stance toward the future; and
4. Materialism-the degree to which material rather than spiritual ends are pursued.

Discriminant analysis was used to determine whether or nor statistically signijicanr predictions
of group membership would emerge from the overall pattern of aggregated responses. In addition we
ran three sets of simple t-tests on the top-fwenw discriminating variables comparing each country
pairwise. The results of the three-way discriminanr analysis shows that all three groups were found
to be suficienrly d@erent to permit a high degree of accuracy in predicted group membership.
Results indicate that along the individualismlcollecrivism dimension of culture, colleclivisl values
are generally highly enduring. F$y years of exposure to very difSerent ideologies have done little to
break down the traditional collectivist Chinese culture rhar is each groups heritage. The results for
power distance, in contrast, indicate that it is more malleable and can shif in the face of ideological
pressures. Uncertainty avoidance does not appear to have moved in rhe direction of a Western model:
rather, the Taiwanese have adapted ancient Confucian beliefs into a dynamic, future-oriented set of
values that has been idenQied by other authors (Hofsrede and Bond 1988) as highly conducive lo
entrepreneurship. Finally, the analysis suggests rhar a work to live attitude is not easily replaced
by a live to work attitude.
The results of the research suggest two areas in which caution should be exercised in adopting
models developed for one culture to the economic development problems of another.
Collectivist cultures. The United States paradigm for entrepreneurial activity is set in a culture
that values independent action, taking personal chances and self-reliance. Interventions that do nof
recognize, and cater to, such collectivist values run a serious risk of failure. Development programs
that assume that individualistic values can be infused into a collectivist culture could be seriously
compromised by the intractability of collecrivist values as signalled by our results.
In collectivist cultures a non-American model may be essential .for the widespread fostering of
entrepreneurship. We speculate that such a model might include a mechanismfor consensual acquisition
of resources and proceeding toward innovation in smaller, linked steps, a pattern that is more akin
to a Japanese model than an American one.
Attitudes toward work. Another highly intractable set of values appears to revolve around
attitudes to the role of work. Programs that attempt to encourage entrepreneurs to come forward via
live to work appeals (and such appeals abound) will make little headway in work to live populaces.
Even in the United States we see significant amounts of scarce resources being devoted to encouraging
disadvantaged groups to pursue careers i,: entrepreneurship on the argument that it is exciting and
self-fuljlling. People who work to live would respond better to arguments that stress wealth
creation and upward mobility--a fact that has not gone unnoticed among the recruiters for the
underworld.
On the other hand it appears that. given time and given a host government that is supportive,
there is no need to assume rhar programs rhar require changes in attitudes to power distance and
increased risk-taking should not eventually take hold--the evidence from our research suggests that
such values are tractable.

INTRODUCTION
Culture, long a major area of study in anthropology, has increasingly begun to provoke
discussion in organizational studies (Peterson 1988; Redding 1990). Much of this discussion
centers on the question of where culture, as opposed to political, social, technological, or
 CULTURE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 443

economic contexts, has relevance for economic behavior (Hickson et al. 1974; Lincoln et
al. 1981; Adler et al. 1989a; Osigweh 1989).
The increasing globalization of the modem world prompts questions about the depth
and persistence of cultural differences, and whether or not these will crumble in the face of
economic change and cross-cultural contact. In entrepreneurship research, there is a contin-
uing discussion of whether or not some cultures produce more innovative and entrepreneurial
behavior than others (Baumol 1990; Peterson 1988; Shaper0 and Sokol 1982; Shane 1991).
This study begins to explore the malleability of cultural differences, and the relationship of
these differences to entrepreneurial behavior by comparing cultural values held by entre-
preneurs in the Peoples Republic of China, Taiwan, the Republic of China, and the United
States.
These three countries were selected for the following reason. Mainland China and
Taiwan share a Chinese cultural heritage that stretches back over millennia. This heritage
is fundamentally different from the Western cultural heritage of the United States. However,
for the past 50 years the two countries have pursued radically different ideologies, with
Taiwan embracing a Western style capitalism and Mainland China pursuing a Communist
ideology. Eor 50 years, severe and unrelenting ideological pressures have been brought to
bear on the base Chinese culture in these two countries, with Taiwans culture being pressured
in the direction of the ideological values of the United States, and the culture of the Mainland
being pushed toward Maoist Communism. The cultural revolution of the late 196Os, for
example, was a dramatic and deliberate attempt to change long-standing systems of values.
If we can identify values that the people of Mainland China and of Taiwan still share,
even after 50 years under totally different ideologies, and identify values that the people of
Taiwan and of the United States now share, that are different from Mainland China, we
may begin to uncover which facets of culture are enduring and which are malleable.
This is salient because governments around the world invest immense amounts of
resources in trying to promote entrepreneurial activities, often simplistically trying to transfer
programs that have worked in one culture to a totally different culture (Birley 1985; Holzinger
1989; Manning et al. 1989; Bendick and Egan 1987; Dana 1988). In this study, we hope
to uncover those facets of culture that are likely to reject a simple transplant from another
culture, as well as those facets of culture that are more likely to respond to external pressure.

CULTURE DEFINED
A first difficulty when considering culture is an absence of precision in its definition.
Researchers in anthropology, such as Kroeber and Parsons (1958) and Hall (1973) suggested
that culture is related to the ways in which societies organize social behavior and knowledge.
Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) argued that a national culture is a fairly consistent set of
value orientations developed in response to the fact that there are a limited number of
common societal problems with a limited number of known responses.
Hofstede (1980) adapted this approach. Culture, he suggested, is to a collectivity what
personality is to an individual, that is, the interactive aggregate of common characteristics
that influence a human groups response to its environment. (p. 25) Based on a monumental
study involving over 116,000 IBM employees in 40 countries, Hofstede identified four
dimensions of culture which, like Kluckhohn and Strodtbecks universal problems present
a parsimonious framework for considering culture.
Hofstedes dimensions are:
1. Power Distance-management of inequality between people;
444 R.G. McGRATH ET AL

2. Individualism-the relationship between individuals and collectives;

3. Uncertainty Avoidance-stance toward the future; and
4. Materialism-the degree to which material rather than spiritual ends are pursued.

Hofstedes work suggests that shared values endure over time and are fairly consistent
within cultures because they have been institutionalized. He terms the practices, structures
and routines through which culture is institutionalized the consequences of that culture.
Consequences are created by and also reinforce the underlying cultural conditions. Societies
with high norms of individualism, for example, will tend to have greater occupational
mobility, more press freedom and worship of the independent actor (1980, p. 238).
Societies with low individualism values will tend to have less occupational mobility and
less press freedom. Consequences can also be seen in relatively enduring political, social
and technical systems. Taken together, the systems of value orientation and their conse-
quences represent singular and enduring national characteristics. Though Hofstede has been
criticized over the years (Child 198 1; Roberts and Boyacigiller 1984) there has been no
other work that, on an empirical basis, successfully ties cultural orientation and observable
institutional differences between countries to a parsimonious framework. In this study, the
primary interest is the idea that culture is associated with discrete institutional outcomes and
that it is relatively enduring within a society. We will therefore use the Hofstede framework
while acknowledging this earlier criticism.

VALUE SYSTEMS AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP

An ongoing debate of entrepreneurship research continues to be whether entrepreneurs are
like other people, or whether they are different (Gartner 1985). In the context of this study,
the question of interest is whether or not the values of the base culture tend to differentiate
entrepreneurs from different countries, and if so, where they do and where they do not.
From the earliest days of the field, research with a psychological/personality focus
sought to identify universal traits of character that differentiated entrepreneurs (McClelland
1967; Collins et al. 1964; Brockhaus 1982; Sexton and Bowman 1985; Gasse 1982). This
work did not succeed in identifying universal entrepreneurial traits-rather, as pointed out
by Gartner (1985), it demonstrated that entrepreneurs are a diverse lot.
At the level of the broader social structure, have been made to link beliefs
attempts
and values to entrepreneurial activity. Lodge (1976), for example, claims that the entrepre-
neur is the prototype of Lockean man.

He seeks individual fulfillment in an individualistic way, doing what is new or unknown

or putting together what is known in a new way. His activities tend to be unplanned,
exploratory, and experimental; his organization is generally small so that he personally
can control it. He is often engaged in introducing change (p. 31).

In a recent article, Hofstede and Bond (1988) indicated that the dimension uncertainty avoidance, for
which there was strong support from the IBM sample, was not meaningful for a follow-up study conducted in the
Peoples Republic of China. Instead, they found a dimension they labelled Confucian dynamism. While ac-
knowledging that this dimension is somewhat opaque to the Western reader, they suggest that it sheds more light
on an Oriental view than does a simplistic focus only on risk and uncertainty.
% his original work Hofstede (1980) used the term masculinity, after noting that in societies where there
is a very clear delineation of roles between genders the males tend to be assigned very assertive and materialistic
roles and females assigned submissive and nurturing roles. We prefer to use the term that reflects behavior rather
than gender.
 CULTURE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 46

In Lodges view, cultures reflecting these values will tend to reflect greater amounts
of entrepreneurship. Hagans (1960) historical analysis attempted to link entrepreneurship
with a minority or disadvantaged position. A peripheral position within a mainstream culture,
he suggested, may make risk-taking entrepreneurial activities more attractive as there is less
to lose. A similar point is made by Brenner (1987) who argued that entrepreneurial behavior
is primarily the result of an individuals attempt to catch up with others in society from a
position of disadvantage. A recent study by McGrath et al. (1992) suggested that entrepre-
neurs from very different cultures share certain values that on the whole differentiate them
from non-entrepreneurs.
Although the entrepreneurship literature suggests that value structures may form an
important construct in a theory of entrepreneurial behavior, their magnitude and overall
importance is still relatively unknown, as is the relative influence of entrepreneurial values
as opposed to those of the base culture. To start to explore this we next outline current
thinking on the base value structures for the American and Chinese samples.

CONFUCIAN CULTURE: A VIEW FROM THE WEST

Economic reform in the Peoples Republic of China, and the economic emergence of Japan,
South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore, have prompted a great deal of Western
research interest in Asian business organizations, social structures and interpersonal conduct
(see., for example, Boisot and Child 1988; Shenkar and Ronen 1987; Lockett 1987; Schlack
1989). While an exhaustive treatment of the literature that describes oriental cultures as
opposed to occidental ones is not feasible here, the following section provides a brief
comparison of perspectives on Chinese culture, as contrasted with that of the United States.

Relative importance of Individuals Versus Collectives

Lockes philosophy is one that exemplifies the Western view of the individual (Northrop
1952; Lodge 1975; Cavanagh 1976). In his view, society consists of the sum of all individuals.
Each person struggles alone, only the fit survive, and outcomes are the result of individual
achievement (or lack thereof). Equality of opportunity, justice, and individual attainment
of self-fulfillment are related concepts, as is the notion that people have the power to control
their own surroundings and fate (Lodge 1975).
In Chinese culture, as exemplified by Confucian philosophy, individuals are unim-
portant (Redding 1990). Society is comprised of families, not individuals. Lockett (1987)
terms this group consciousness. Even the word man has a very different meaning in
Chinese than in English. In the Chinese perception, man embodies a web of relationships,
without which the individual has little meaning. Success and failure, for example, cannot
be analyzed on an individual basis (Redding 1980).
Hofstede (1980), similarly, identifies individualism as one of his four cultural dimen-
sions. His 1980 study found that the United States had the highest individualism score of
the 40 countries in his sample, while Hong Kong and Taiwan had among the lowest (p.
222).

The Nature of Equality

People in the United States are thought to believe in equality and justice for all, in terms
of equality of opportunity. This relates to a belief in individual efficacy. Ironically, this
446 R.G. McGRATH ET AL.

belief also leads to an acceptance of inequality of result. Those who fail do so because of
personal, individual inadequacies. Similarly, relationships between individuals are thought
to be collegial, rather than hierarchical. One finds the notion also that individuals should be
only as proscribed by formal rules as is minimally necessary to keep the society functioning
(Northrop 1952; Redding 1990).
This Its a free country approach is in sharp contrast to the beliefs one finds in
Chinese culture. People are expected to conform to well-defined roles and are bound by the
obligations entailed by those roles. A father, for example, has responsibility for the well-
being of the family (Redding 1990). The difference between Eastern and Western views of
equality is the difference between duties and rights.
Hofstede and Bond (1988), in a study of neo-Confucian countries, find that they tend
to score high on the power distance equality dimension, while the 1980 study put the
United States below the mean score. Tung (1989) indicates that people from the Peoples
Republic of China should score low on power distance. Tungs (1989) argument raises the
issue of the effects of ideology upon deeply rooted cultural values. Historically, Chinese
social and family organization has been hierarchical and rigid, a prototypically high power
distance structure.3 Communist political ideology, on the other hand, stresses equality be-
tween comrades.

Risk and Uncertainty Avoidance

Another of Hofstedes dimensions is uncertainty avoidance, which is related to a cultures
reaction to uncertainty and peoples tolerance of unstructured (novel, unknown, surprising,
or different from usual) situations. Uncertainty-avoiding cultures seek stability and security;
people in these cultures tend to hold that there is an absolute truth. Uncertainty-accepting
cultures tend to be more tolerant of different opinions and want few rules.
Chinese culture is often described as classically uncertainty-avoiding. There are nu-
merous rules that guide behavior and therefore generate predictable behavior, and breaking
rules is not well tolerated. There is a belief that one should not try to force change, as events
have a natural course of action. Changes are therefore handled in quite a different way than
they would be in the West. The now well-known concept of connection plays an important
role in rule-breaking (Yao 1987; Tse et al. 1988; Redding 1990). Connection refers to
consensual rule-breaking, which minimizes risks for individuals. If everyone relies on a
connection to make the next link, then in the end, no one is really responsible for a rule-
breaking outcome.
Hofstede and Bond (1988) report that the uncertainty avoidance dimension as originally
conceived did not appear to be appropriate to all Asian respondents. Instead, they posit a
dimension they call Confucian dynamism, whose poles represent either a more dynamic,
future-oriented mentality or a more static, tradition-oriented one (p. 16). This dimension
is characterized by persistence, relationships ordered by status, thrift, and a sense of shame,
and the relative unimportance of personal steadiness, protecting face, respecting tradition,
and reciprocating greetings or gifts.

Attitudes Toward Work

According to Lodge (1973, a sense of individual worth and strong religious beliefs converge
in the American work ethic. Cultural myths such as rags to riches stories and the glori-

Hofstedes study found that both Hong Kong and Taiwan were well above the mean on power distance,
with only six countries scoring higher than Hong Kong on this dimension.
 CULTURE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 447

TABLE 1 Alternative Views of the Impact of Culture Versus Ideology on Societal Outcomes

Perspective

Culture predominates Ideology dominates

Societal outcomes are Culture and values Economic, political or social

primarily linked to: interventions
Values over time are: Enduring and slow to change Relatively malleable

fication of the self-made man promote a view of work as a way that able individuals may
attain success (presuming, again, equality of opportunity). Work itself is viewed as having
intrinsic worth and Americans believe in living to work.
While Chinese people are also generally recognized as hard-working, this attitude is
geared toward end results; only through working hard will they be insured against a precarious
environment, natural or man-made. This view of work, coupled with a sense of duty and
conformity with social norms leads to a sense of work as something done for its extrinsic
rewards. They work because they have to. The Chinese work ethic is that of working to
live (Hall 1976).

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES SUMMARIZED

As was noted at the outset, the study of cultural influence upon various kinds of work-
related outcomes has taken basically two approaches. The first, advocated by Hofstede
(1980), for example, implies that culture is a relatively stable phenomenon, leading to
significant differences in economic and social outcomes between people from different
cultures, and that these values become deeply entrenched, rendering the social outcomes
impermeable to attempts to change. An alternative approach (for example, Ronen 1986),
downplays the inertia created by cultural factors, attributing societal outcomes as more
susceptible to economic or developmental interventions. Table 1 illustrates the differing
perspectives. The two schools of thought on the role that culture plays in determining societal
outcomes is also reflected in divergent views about the circumstances under which values
will change. If culture is relatively permanent, and more powerful than imposed social,
political or economic forces, we should see relatively little change in values of respondents
that originated from the same base culture, but now function in different socio-ideological
environments. On the other hand, if culture erodes rapidly in the face of these other forces,
responses to value-related questions should be quite different once the political or economic
underpinnings of the respondents lives have been changed by these forces. This too is
depicted in Table 1.
In this study we are interested in the extent to which social interventions designed to
encourage entrepreneurship need to take into account the culture of the target population.
We need to begin to find those facets of culture that are relatively permanent and those that
tend to be tractable in the face of socio-political pressures. Those who carry out enormously
expensive interventions to encourage entrepreneurship can thus begin to recognize where
the Western model of entrepreneurship must be adapted to take into account enduring,
intractable cultural values.
The comparison of values among Mainland Chinese, Taiwanese and American entre-
preneurs provides a special opportunity to explore this issue. As we mentioned above, for
50 years severe and unrelenting ideological pressures have been brought to bear on the base
448 R.G. McGRATH ET AL.

TABLE 2 Characteristics of Samples

us Taiwan PRC

% Male 65 86 89
% Married 69 78 77
% Degreed 51 34 24
% Manufacturing 24 N/A* 55
8 Commerce 18 N/A* 3
% Services 39 NiA* 10
Median age 35 36 38

*Not available

Chinese culture in these two countries. Therefore, in the spirit of Shenkar and Ronen (1987)
who recommend that researchers examine partially similar countries to best examine cultural
issues, by studying Mainland China and Taiwan, who share a cultural heritage, and Taiwan
and the United States, who share similar political ideologies, we can start to uncover where
culture predominates and where ideology predominates.
To summarize, where culture predominates and endures:

l Chinese and American entrepreneurs should show different patterns of response

l Taiwanese responses should be similar to Chinese responses

Where culture is eroded rapidly by ideological forces, and is thus relatively malleable:

* Taiwanese and American entrepreneurs should show similar patterns of response

o Taiwanese responses should be more similar to American responses

DESIGN OF THE STUDY

Data for the current study came from a 13-nation database on entrepreneurship assembled
under the auspices of The Center for Entrepreneurial Studies at New York University Grad-
uate School of Business, the Snider Entrepreneunial Center at the Wharton School of the
University of Pennsylvania and the affiliates of intemational collaborators. This study used
samples of entrepreneurs from the USA (N = 356), the Peoples Republic of China (N =
lOO), and Taiwan (N = 219).
En~epreneu~ in the sample were defined along the lines suggested by Gartner (1985)
as individuals who initiated an entrepreneurial event, that of starting a venture. in the context
here, the term entrepreneur should be considered equivalent to founder of a new business.
Only stud-alone businesses, not new ventures initiated as part of an established concern
were included. Founders were requested to fill out the questionnaire. Criteria for inclusion
were that the business be at least two years old, that it have at least one other person
empfoyed, and that the founder devote a major portion of his or her time to this business.
The composition of the sample is given in Table 2.
The questionnaire was designed to operationalize cultural influence (Hofstede 1980; Kluck-
hohn and Strodtbeck, 1961; Lodge 1975). A series of questions seeking to identify the values
of respondents on 14 cultural variables was developed, and each respondent answered on a
Likert-type scale. Possible answers were: 1 = strongly agree; 2 = agree; 3 = neither agree
nor disagree; 4 = disagree; 5 = strongly disagree. Fourteen general categories were as-
 CULTURE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 449

sociated with from four to 10 individual questions, for a total of 83 variables. Attitudes
toward time, for example, were specified by four statements: (1) time is a limited resource;
(2) the private life and time of an employee is properly a matter of direct concern to his
company; (3) never do tomorrow what you can do today; and (4) is best spent being planned
for and organized to avoid surprises.

METHOD
Methodological issues plague cross-cultural research, and this study is no more immune
than others. First, Western instruments often appear to yield inconclusive or uninterpretable
results when transported to an entirely different cultural context (Hofstede and Bond, 1988;
Adler et al. 1989a; Shenkar and Ronen 1987). Second, proven methods for designing and
distributing questionnaires and analyzing results may be inappropriate to tap cross-cultural
phenomena, as it is not clear whether differences found are due to true cultural effects, or
are merely artifacts related to the instruments.
In a study initiated to explore managerial behavior in the Peoples Republic of China,
which ended up as an article on methodological problems, Adler et al. (1989a) identified
the following issues:

1. Over half the responses to their questionnaire were bimodally distributed.

2. Such results should therefore be described through the use of averages rather than through
techniques relying on means.
3. The factor structure of the responses was uninterpretable.

We attempted to account for these difficulties. Each variable was checked individually
for bimodality.4 None of the response sets in the sample had this characteristic. Given that
bimodality was not an issue, we felt it was appropriate to utilize means to describe the data.
As might be expected, based on Adler et al. (1989), factor analysis yielded results
that were uninterpretable-in one case creating over 30 factors for 83 variables. Rather than
using an approach relying on factors, we therefore utilized discriminant analysis to determine
whether or not statistically significant predictions of group membership would emerge from
the overall pattern of aggregated responses. Significant variables were determined first by
the STEPWISE procedure in the SAS DISCRIM program. We then selected those 20 variables
that best discriminated the three samples and ran a three-way discriminant analysis comparing
all three groups of entrepreneurs. 5 In addition we ran three sets of simple t tests on the top-
twenty discriminating variables comparing each country pairwise.

RESULTS
As is shown in Table 3, the results of the three-way discriminant analysis shows that all
three groups were found to be sufficiently different to permit a high degree of accuracy in
predicted group membership.

4Defined by Adler et al. as 20% or more in agreement, 20% or more in disagreement and less than 13%
neutral.
The full set of discriminating variables that discriminated at the 0.05 level comprised 61 variables listed
in Appendix 1. Compared with the top 20 variables in the list there was only marginal improvement when all 61
of these variables were used-the correct classification of Mainland entrepreneurs only increased from 78% to 83%
with 41 more variables in the discriminant function. Therefore the decision was made to truncate the function at
the 20 most discriminating variables.
450 R.G. McGRATH ET AL

TABLE 3 Results of Three Way Discriminant Analysis Comparing Chinese, Taiwanese and
American Entrepreneurs

Classification

From category N Mainland China Taiwan USA

Mainland China 82 78.05% 18.29% 3.66%

Taiwan 215 3.72% 93.02% 3.26%
USA 267 1.50% 3.00% 95.51%
Prior probability 0.15 0.38 0.47

It is interesting to note that these discriminating variables are far better at separating
Mainland China and Taiwan from United States entrepreneurs than separating the two Chinese
groups. Furthermore, the worst separation is between Mainland China and Taiwan, with
18% of the small Mainland sample being classified as Taiwanese entrepreneurs. The inter-
pretation is as follows: despite four plus decades of very different and intense ideological
pressures, the two Chinese groups continue to hold values that distinguish them markedly
from the United States, which is no surprise and provides support for the domination of
culture argument. However, despite the blurring of the value scores there is still substantial
discrimination between the two Chinese groups (nearly 80% of the Mainland entrepreneurs
were correctly classified) indicating that there appear to be some values that are susceptible
to ideological pressures.
We explore next by analyzing differences among means. We would expect that the
responses for all three countries would align along the dimensions discussed in the section
above on cultural differences, with the United States at one pole, China at the other and
Taiwan in the middle. The next section explores the findings in this context.
Table 4 provides group means and the results of r--test comparisons among the means
for the 20 variables used in the three-way discriminant analysis. The right-most column also
indicates the relative position of the Taiwanese, the Mainland, and the United States means
in relation to one another. In general we have identified three major sets of cases:

1. Those cases where the Taiwanese responses are closer to the Mainland responses than
to the United States (either Taiwan and the Mainland are both significantly different from
the United States, but not from one another, or the mean for the Mainland lies between
Taiwan and the United States and the Mainland is significantly different from the United
States). For such cases our interpretation is that the two Chinese groups have stuck
together on these beliefs despite the decades of political intervention. Therefore these
cases reflect those facets of culture that tend to be particularly resistant to socio-political
intervention.
Those cases where the mean Taiwanese responses are closer to the United States responses
than to the Mainland responses (either Taiwan and the United States are both significantly
different from the Mainland but not from one another, or the mean for the United States
lies between Taiwan and the Mainland and is significantly different from the United
States). For such cases our interpretation is that the two Chinese groups have drifted
apart on these beliefs. Therefore these cases reflect those facets of culture that tend to
be most responsive to socio-political intervention.
Those cases where the mean Taiwanese responses lie between the Mainland responses
and the United States responses with the Taiwanese responses significantly different from
 CULTURE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 451

TABLE 4 Means and Descriptions for Variables Used in the Study?

us- lw- TW-
China Taiwan USA Item CH CH US Code

Individual Versus Collective

2.17 2.27 I .73 There is a duty to be true to yourself and * * **
your ideals
2.67 2.47 3.47 Private life and time of an employee is * * **
properly MTR of direct concern to his
company
2.45 2.36 2.77 Duty for firms to be responsible for health, * * **
welfare of workers and their families
2.90 2.47 3.46 Competition means local businesses * * * **
working together or sharing resources
2.73 2.55 3.42 Competition means every company must * * **
work alone to gain market share
2.73 2.90 2.37 Money means you can provide for your * * **
retirement and security for your family
3.08 2.51 2.18 Success is being able to provide security * * * *
for your family
2.80 3.49 3.79 Having money means you have conducted * * * *
business in an unconventional way

EqualitylPower
3.11 4.25 3.34 Having money means you are well * * * ***
connected
4.05 2.79 3.17 Power results from owning property/land * * * ***
2.66 2.99 3.89 Equality is impossible-there should be * * * *
inequality in the world-all have a
rightful place
4.02 3.50 2.99 Having rights means every citizen is able * * * *
to influence political decisions
3.44 3.87 3.67 Power results from being a man * * * f
2.96 2.84 3.48 Power means being able to give detailed * * **
instructions to the way others should do
their jobs

Uncerrainty
3.64 2.79 3.10 Starting a company means a risk of losing * * * ***
your assets, including your house
3.82 3.16 3.35 Starting a company means a risk of * * ***
psychic health
3.12 3.73 4.52 Failure is associated with: youd better not * * * *
fail-there are no second chances
2.36 2.86 2.35 Being an entrepreneur means producing * * 1

existing products in a more effective

way

Work
2.95 2.72 3.47 Work is the way you develop social status * * * **
3.01 3.06 2.20 Starting a company means risk of * * **
uncertainty but adds to the excitement of
your life

tcodes:
1 = Strongly agree, 5 = Strongly disagree
*Taiwanese entrepreneurs score in between Mainland and U.S. entrepreneurs
**Taiwanese entrepreneurs score closer to Mainland than U.S. entrepeneurs
***Taiwanese entrepreneurs score closer to U.S. than Mainland entrepreneurs
!Mainland entrepreneurs score closer to U.S. than Taiwanese entrepreneurs
452 R.G. McCRATH ET AL.

both the United States and the Mainland. For such cases our interpretation is that the
Taiwanese group has begun to drift away from the Mainland group. Therefore these cases
reflect facets of culture that have limited responsiveness to socio-political intervention.

In Table 4 we have interpreted a score of below 3 to indicate agreement while a

score of above 3 indicates disagreement.

Individualism
Table 4 lists the eight discriminating items that in one way or another tap the issue of whether
the social frame of reference is individual or collective. It is interesting to note that for six
of these eight items, the two groups of Chinese entrepreneurs continue to share a collectivist
perspective. They agree far less than the United States that one should be true to oneself,
agree far more than the United States that the firm is responsible for the workforce, agree
far more than the United States that business activities should be collective, and agree less
than the United States entrepreneurs on the role of the individual in providing for family
and long-term security. In none of the cases related to individualism do the Taiwanese score
significantly closer to the United States sample than to the Mainland sample, though there
is a major shift toward a United States attitude that having money does not necessarily imply
unconventional business dealings.
Our interpretation is therefore that along the individualism/collectivism dimension of
culture, collectivist values are generally highly enduring-50 years of exposure to very
different ideologies has done little to break down the traditional collectivist Chinese culture
that is each groups heritage.

Power Distance
In contrast to the individualism dimension, there have been significant shifts toward the
United States values for the six discriminating items that tap the power distance dimension.
The Taiwanese actually disagree even more than the United States that having money
necessarily comes from connections. They are on the opposite extreme from the Mainland
on the issue of whether or not power derives from property ownership. As opposed to the
Mainland respondents they have significantly shifted toward the United States values re-
garding equality of individuals and belief in access by all to political decisions. Interestingly,
United States entrepreneurs (perhaps as a result of increased political pressures for womens
rights) and Mainland China (with its gender-emancipating communist ideology) have both
moved away from traditional male-domination beliefs, which are still reflected in the Tai-
wanese responses.
We interpret the results for power distance as evidence that, unlike the individual-
ism/collectivism facet of culture, the power distance dimension is more malleable and can
shift in the face of ideological pressures. More often than not the Taiwanese have moved
away from Mainland values in the direction of the values of egalitarian democracies.

Risk and Uncertainty Avoidance

Three of the four items that tap attitudes to risk and uncertainty avoidance indicate that the
Taiwanese in the sample have shifted away from the traditional Chinese predilection for
uncertainty avoidance-Taiwanese now reflect more of the emerging Confucian dynamism
 CULTURE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 453

identified by Hofstede and Bond (1988) in that they recognize and acknowledge the significant
asset and psychic risk of starting a company, and have moved to a position between the
M~nl~d and the United States samples on the belief that you only get one chance.
Interestingly, Taiwanese entrepreneurs appeared more prepared to risk producing entirely
new products than either the United States or the Mainland samples-both United States
and Mainland entrepreneurs strongly believed that entrepreneurs need not start new products,
but can simply produce existing products more effectively and presumably less risky.
In summary it seems that the uncertainty avoidance facet of culture has evolved into
the dynamic Confucianism discussed by Hofstede and Bond in 1988.

Attitudes to the Role of Work

With respect to attitudes toward the role of work, the Taiwanese continue to agree with the
strongly held Mainland belief that work is the route to social status, a position on which
the United States sample significantly disagrees. Furthermore, the two groups of Chinese
entrepreneurs saw far less excitement in their start-ups than their United States counterparts.
This set of responses suggests that work to live attitudes are not easily replaced by live
to work attitudes.
In summary, the above results suggest that value structures related to individual-
is~~ollectivism and to attitudes to the role of work appear to be much more enduring than
the value structures related to acceptance of power distance and to unce~ainty avoidance.

CONCLUSION
The literature on culture has identified several critical dimensions that comprise the system
of beliefs that shape peoples behavior, as well as act as a source of blinders to effectively
close one off from information arising outside ones own cultural frame. Our study attempted
to see whether or not this was indeed the case for entrepreneurs, a group of people who by
definition deviate somewhat from most of their countrymen by virtue of having started their
own businesses. We were interested in the question of where base culture or ideological
pressures appeared more powerful in terms of values that these entrepreneurs hold.
The results of the analysis suggest which values may shift in a relatively short time
(speaking historically) when political and social interventions are brought into play, and
which would be very difficult to change. They indicate that despite 50 years of ideological
pressure there has been little shift in the basic collectivist values and attitudes to the role of
work in the two groups of Chinese entrepreneurs. On the other hand, after 50 years of
capitalism, some values of the Taiwanese entrepreneurs have shifted significantly-they
have largely moved away from the ~aditional Chinese acceptance of high power distance
and moved away from high uncertainty avoidance to a mindset of the more modem Con-
fucian dynamism identified in the recent work of Hofstede and Bond (1988).

IMPLICATIONS
In the implications of the research discussed below, we caution the reader to bear in mind
the exploratory nature of the work. The samples of entrepreneurs are not random, but
convenience samples. In this study the Taiwanese sample was selected from an official list
of new business licenses in Taiwan, the Peoples Republic of China sample was drawn from
a list of approved businesses in the Enterprise Zones that were being created prior to the
454 R.G. McCRATH ET AL.

Tienanmen Square tragedy, while the U.S. sample was drawn from the subset of applicants
to the Pennsylvania and New York Small Business Development Centers who had applied
for advice on how to start up their businesses.
The measures that we used were adapted from Hofstede (1980), and have all the
problems associated with cross-cultural studies. The issue of how well the questions were
translated into Mandarin and how the Chinese respondents interpreted these translations is
further cause for circumspection. Overall, we feel that it is more appropriate to use our
results to voice concern rather than make recommendations.
Despite the sampling and measurement concerns that we have with this study, we feel
that the results should call for some circumspection among policy-makers and institutions
bent on spending vast sums of money to promote entrepreneurship in countries around the
world.
The results of the research suggests two areas in which caution should be exercised
in adopting models developed for one culture to the economic development problems of
another.

Collectivist Cultures
The United States paradigm for entrepreneurial activity is set in a culture that values in-
dependent action; taking personal chances and self-reliance. Our findings suggest that this
paradigm is not accurate for collectivist cultures. Programs funded to foster entrepreneurship
in cultures that are collectivist, but which assume economic behavior to be guided by the
underlying values of highly individualist cultures, may run a serious risk of failure. If our
results are indicative, it is extremely difficult to infuse individualistic values into a collectivist
culture. The intractability of collectivist values implies that no amount of short-term in-
vestment in changing peoples values to favor individual over collective action will work.
In such collectivist cultures a non-American model is thus more appropriate to the
widespread fostering of entrepreneurship. We speculate that such a model might include a
mechanism for consensual acquisition of resources and decision-making. Innovation, for
example, would be approached with greater circumspection, proceeding in small, linked
steps taken by groups working together. This pattern is closer to a Japanese model than an
American one.

Attitudes Toward Work

Another highly intractable set of values appears to revolve around attitudes to the role of
work. Programs that attempt to encourage entrepreneurs to begin business via live to work
appeals (and such appeals abound) will make little headway in work to live populaces.
Even in the United States we see significant amounts of scarce resources being devoted to
encouraging disadvantaged groups to pursue careers in entrepreneurship on the argument
that it is exciting and self-fulfilling. People working to live would respond better to
arguments that stress wealth creation and upward mobility-a fact that has not gone unnoticed
among the recruiters for the underworld.
Currently vast amounts of resources are being spent in trying to bring forth entrepre-
neurs in Eastern Europe. Let us hope that the very different attitudes to work and attitudes
to individualism that exist in the different populations of that region are recognized and
catered to.
 CULTURE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 455

Attitudes Toward Personal Power and Risk

It appears that, given time and a host government that is supportive, entrepreneurial devel-
opment programs that assume and strive for reduced acceptance of power distance and
increased risk-taking should eventually take hold. The evidence from our research suggests
that power distance and risk-taking values were tractable in Taiwan, and could be elsewhere
(though it could take a long time).

WWES FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

This study focused on the influence of culture at an individual level, with the implication
that our samples reflected characteristics of the national background from which the re-
spondents originated. We conclude that culture does make a difference at an individual
level. Entrepreneurs values appear to have exerted an influence on their behavior. A fruitful
area for further inquiry is to explore whether or not this appears to be the case at a country
level of analysis. In other words, if certain cultural elements facilitate starting a business,
do those countries in which these values are widely accepted tend to have more business
start-ups?
A second area of inquiry suggested here is the relationship of values to entrepreneurial
strategy and outcomes. We did not, for example, examine whether cultural values affected
the performance outcomes or competitive strategies of the businesses in our sample. Such
a study would shed considerable light on the development problem as well.
The major problem with the current research lies in the convenience sample used.
Clearly we could be much more confident in the results if a random sample of entrepreneurs
that actually start a bona fide business could be used. This issue is being addressed in a
second generation international database currently being designed. Based on what has been
learned from the current study, much greater care will also be taken in item selection and
translation for the questionnaires of the second generation study.

REFERENCES
Adler, N.J., Campbell, N. and Laurent, N. 1989a. In search of appropriate methodology: From outside
the peoples republic of China looking in. Journal of International Business Studies 20( 1):61-
74.
Aldrich, H. and Zimmer, C. 1986. Entrepreneurship through social networks. In D.L. Sexton and
R.W. Smilor, eds., The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger
Publishing, pp. 2-23.
Baumol, W.J. 1990. Entrepreneurship: Productive, unproductive, and destructive. Journal of Political
Economy 98(5):893-92 1.
Bendick, M. Jr., and Egan, M.L. 1987. Look whos becoming an entrepreneur. Across the Board
24( 1):52-54.
Birley, S. 1985. Encouraging entrepreneurship: Britains new enterprise program. Journal of Small
Business Management 23(4)X%12.
Boisot, M. and Child, J. 1988. The iron laws of fiefs: Bureaucratic failure and the problem of
governance in the Chinese economic reforms. Administrative Science Quarterly 33507-527.
Brenner, R. 1987. National policy and entrepreneurship: The statesmans dilemma. Journal of Business
Venturing 2(2):95-101.
Brockhaus, R.H. 1982. The Psychology of the Entrepreneur in C.A. Kent, D.L. Sexton, and K.H.
Vesper (eds). Encyclopedia of Entreprenuership, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice Hall, pp.
39-54.
Child, J. 1981. Culture, contingency and capitalism in the cross-national study of organizations.
Research in Organizational Behavior 31303-356.
456 R.G. McGRATH ET AL

Dana, L.P. 1988. The spirit of entrepreneurship and the Commonwealth government of Australia.
Journal of Small Business Management 25( 1):63-65.
Gartner, W .B. 1985. A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture creation.
Academy of Management Review 10(4):696706.
Gasse, Y. 1982. Elaborationson the Psychology of the Entrepreneur in C.A. Kent, D.L. Sexton and
K.A. Vesper (eds) Encylopedia of Entrepeneurship Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice Hall, Inc.
Hagan, E.E. 1960. The entmpmneur as rebel against traditional society. Human Organization 19(4):185-
187.
Hall, E.T. 1973. The Silent Language. Garden City NJ: Anchor Books.
Hall, E.T. 1976. Beyond Culture. Garden City NJ: Anchor Books.
Hickson, D., Hinings, C., McMillan, C. and Schwitter, A. 1974. The culture free context of organ-
izational structure: A &i-national comparison. Sociology 8: 1-14.
Hofstede, G. 1980. Cultures Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Sage
Publications, Newbury Pk, CA.
Hofstede, G. and Bond, M.H. 1988. The Confucious connection: From cultural roots to economic
growth. Organizational Dynamics 16(4):5-2 1.
Holzinger, A.G. 1989. Openings abroad for enterprise. Nations Business 77(1):66-68.
Kluckhohn, F. and Strodtbeck, F.L. 1961. Variations in Value Orientations. Evanston, IL: Row
Peterson.
Kroeber, A.L. and Parsons, T. 1958. The concepts of culture and of social system. American Soci-
ological Review 23:582-583.
Lincoln, J., Hanada, M. and Olson, J. 1981. Cultural orientations and individual reactions to organ-
izations: A study of employees of Japanese-owned firms. Administrative Science Quarterly
(26):94-l 15.
Lockett, M. 1987. Chinas Special Economic Zones: The cultural and managerial challenges. Journal
of General Management 12(3):21-31.
Lodge, G.C. 1975. The New American Ideology. New York, NY: Alfred Knopf.
Manning, K., Birley, S. and Norbum, D. 1989. Developing a new ventures strategy. Entrepreneurship,
Theory and Practice 14( 1):68-76.
McClelland, D.C. 1967. The Achieving Society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand, Reinhold.
McGrath, R., MacMillan, I.C. and Scheinberg, S. 1991. Elitists, risk-takers and rugged individualists:
An exploratory analysis of cultural differences between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs.
Journal of Business Venturing, (2): 115-l 35.
Northrup, F.S.C. 1952. The Free Culture of the United States. New York, NY: The MacMillan
Company.
Osigweh, Y ., Chimezie, A.B. 1989. The myth of universality in transnational organizational science.
In A.B. Chimezie, Y. Osigweh, eds., Organization Science Abroad: Constraints and Per-
spectives. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Peterson, R. 1988. Understanding and encouraging entrepreneurship internationally. Journal of Small
Business Management 26(2): 1-7.
Redding, S.G. 1980. Cognition as an aspect of culture and its relation to management processes: An
exploratory view of the Chinese case. The Journal of Management Studies 17(3): 127-148.
Redding, S.G. 1990. The Spirit of Chinese Capitalism. New York, NY: de Gruyter.
Roberts, K.H. and Boyacigiller, N.A. 1984. Cross national organizational research: The grasp of the
blind men. In B. Staw and L.L. Cummings, eds., Research in Organizational Behavior, Green-
wich, CT: JAI Press, Vol. 6. pp. 423-475.
Ronen, S. 1986. Comparative and Multinational Management. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
Schlack, R.F. 1989. Economic change in the Peoples Republic of China: An institutionalist approach.
Journal of Economic Issues 23 (1):155-188.
Sexton, D.L. and Bowman, N. 1985. The entrepreneur: A capable executive and more. Journal of
Business Venturing 1( 1): 129-140.
Shane, Scott. 1991. Why do some societies invent more than others? Journal of Business Venturing,
7(1):29-46.
Shapero, A. and Sokol, L. 1982. The social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In C.A. Kent, D.L.
 CULTURE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 457

Sexton, K.H. Vesper, eds., Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall, pp. 72-88.
Shenkar, 0. and Ronen, S. 1987. Structure and importance of work goals among managers in the
Peoples Republic of China. Academy of Management Journal 30(3):X4-576.
Tse, D.K., Lee, K-H, Vertinsky, I., and Wehrung, D.A. 1988. Does culture matter? A cross-cultural
study of executives choice, decisiveness and risk adjustment in international marketing. Journal
of Marketing 52:8 l-95.
Tung, R.L. 1989. Chinese enterprise management. In A.B. Chimezie, Y. Osigweh, eds., Organization
Science Abroad: Constraints and Perspectives. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Yao, E.L. 1987. Cultivating guan-xi (personal relationships with Chinese partners). Business Marketing
72( 1):62-66.

APPENDIX 1 Means and Descriptions for Variables Used in the Study*

China Taiwan USA Question

IndividuaNCollective
3.02 2.82 2.91 Success is associated with being promoted up through the
ranks in a corporation
2.67 2.52 2.59 Success is owning your own company
3.08 2.51 2.18 Success is being able to provide security for your family
2.48 2.85 2.45 Success is being able to control your own time
2.67 2.41 3.41 Private life and time of an employee is properly MTR of
direct concern to his company
2.90 2.47 3.46 Competiton equals local business working together or
sharing resources
2.73 2.55 3.42 Competition means every company must work alone to gain
market share
3.90 3.76 3.84 Competition means doing more harm than good if found
among employees
3.33 2.57 2.52 Power results from having control over people and resources
2.81 3.38 3.76 Being an entrepreneur means being a technical expert
2.33 2.33 2.20 Entrepreneur using skills and knowledge to advance yourself
2.16 2.45 2.08 Entrepreneur being creative in the use of time and money
2.79 2.57 2.34 Entrepreneur is able to identify resources (machines,
money)
2.93 2.89 2.72 Entrepreneur being able to collaborate with others to start a
business
4.40 4.30 4.55 Entrepreneur is not being able to find a job
3.12 3.19 2.99 1 = more authoritarian, 4 = more consensus-oriented
2.73 2.90 2.37 Money means you can provide for your retirement and
security for your family
2.83 2.48 3.75 Having money means you have conducted business in an
unconventional way
2.45 2.36 2.77 Duty for companies to be responsible for health and welfare
of employees and their families
2.17 2.27 1.73 There is a duty to be true to yourself and your ideals
3.14 3.13 2.66 There is a duty to follow your religious beliefs

Equality and Power Distance

3.17 2.38 2.84 Change of social status is open to everyone
4.02 3.50 2.99 Having rights means every citizen is able to influence
political decisions
3.47 3.38 3.97 Power results from being the eldest
3.17 3.09 2.62 Power results from knowing the right people
458 R.G. McGRATH ET AL.

APPENDIX 1 Continued

China Taiwan USA Question

3.44 3.87 3.67 Power results from being a man

2.96 2.84 3.48 Power equals complete and detailed instructions to the way
others should do their jobs
3.81 4.30 3.48 Having money means you come from an influential family
2.64 2.98 3.91 Equalitys impossible-there should be inequality in the
world-all have a rightful place
2.50 2.65 3.03 Equality is everyones right
3.29 3.92 3.80 Having rights means you have special privileges that others
do not
3.88 4.13 4.41 Having rights means that . an employee should not ask
his manager for a raise
4.05 2.79 3.17 Power results from owning property/land
3.11 4.25 3.34 Having money means you are well connected
3.50 3.51 3.23 Having money means you can buy political favors
2.57 2.42 2.78 Duty to offer a service in return when provided with a
personal favor
2.95 3.07 2.84 Worry if not agree with managers
2.69 2.55 2.06 Having rights means having protection under the law
2.54 2.14 1.94 Having rights means having to accept responsibility in order
to earn your rights

Risk and Uncertainty Avoidance

2.04 2.02 1.72 Time is a limited resource
2.02 2.11 2.29 Never do tomorrow what you can do today
2.71 2.57 2.44 Change is for the better, since without change there cant be
progress
2.69 2.52 2.06 Starting a company means a risk of losing money if it fails
3.23 3.39 3.94 Starting a company means a risk of losing face or honor
3.82 3.16 3.35 Starting a company means a risk of psychic health
3.64 2.79 3.10 Starting a company means a risk of losing your assets,
including your house
3.45 3.33 3.28 Failure is associated with losing a lot of money
3.66 3.28 2.90 Failure is associated with losing face/respect
3.12 3.73 4.52 Failure is associated with youd better not fail-there are
no second chances
3.04 3.71 3.51 Change depends on what the establishment wants
4.05 4.50 4.41 Failure is associated with you werent meant to succeed
2.93 2.57 2.18 Starting a company means investing money to obtain a
profit
2.36 2.86 2.35 Entrepreneur producing existing products in a more effective
way

Attitudes to the Role of Work

3.01 2.37 2.57 Work is the means to develop your own identity and self
respect
3.02 3.60 4.27 Work is preferable in large organizations
2.95 2.72 3.47 Work is the way you develop social status
4.00 4.38 4.66 Work is inherently unpleasant and should be avoided
whenever possible
2.33 2.80 2.48 Work is the means by which you get material things
2.78 2.59 2.45 Interesting and challenging work is more important than
having high earnings
3.01 3.06 2.20 Starting a company means risk of uncertainty but adds to
the excitement of your life

*I = Strongly agree. 5 = Strongly disagree

The author has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to pu