Girişimcilikte Yeni Bir Yönelim: Melez (Hibrit) Girişimcilik

Year 2019, Volume: 14 Issue: 2, 177 - 189, 31.12.2019

Sibel Özafşarlıoğlu Sakallı

Abstract

Melez girişimcilik çoğu ülkede ve akademik
araştırmalarda yeni bir kavramdır. Bu nedenle çalışmada melez girişimciliğe ilişkin teorik ve uygulamalı
araştırmalar çerçevesinde tartışmalara değinerek, bu yeni alana uygulamalı
olarak katkıda bulunmak amaçlamaktadır. Melez girişimcilerin girişimleriyle ilgili
motivasyon, davranış ve niyetleri ile ilgili durumu analiz etmek üzere 2019
Nisan ayı içerisinde ABD’de yaşayan biri tam zamanlı girişimci olan diğeri
melez girişimci olarak devam eden iki Ahıska Türk’ü ile derinlemesine görüşme
gerçekleştirilerek, karşılaştırmalı vaka analizi yapılmıştır. Çalışmadan elde
edilen bulgulara göre melez girişimcilerin homojen bir grup olarak görülmemesi
gerektiği söylenebilir. Zira hem yapılan görüşmeler neticesinde hem de
literatürde bazı melez girişimciler daima ücretli işini devam ettirmeyi
düşünürken, bazıları melez girişimcilikten tam zamanlı girişimci olma
eğiliminde olduğu görülmektedir. Kendi
işini kurma ve bir işi başlatma ile ilgili araştırmalarda melez girişimcilerin
tam zamanlı girişimcilerden ayrı olarak değerlendirilmesi gerekir. Melez
girişimcilerin ve işletmelerinin daha iyi anlaşılması için daha fazla
incelenmesi önerilmektedir.  

Keywords

Girişimcilik, Melez (Hibrit) Girişimcilik, işgücü, istihdam

References

• Block, J. H. ve Landgraf, A. (2016). Transition from part-time entrepreneurship to full-time entrepreneurship: the role of financial and non-financial motives. International Entrepreneurship Management Journal, 12, 259-282.
• Bögenhold, D. (2019). From Hybrid Entrepreneurs to Entrepreneurial Billionaires: Observations on the Socioeconomic Heterogeneity of Self-employment. American Behavioral Scientist, 63(2), 129-146.
• Burmeister-Lamp, K., Levesque, M. ve Schade, C. (2012). Are entrepreneurs influenced by risk attitude, regulatory focus or both? An experiment on entrepreneurs' time allocation. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(4), 456-476.
• Clark, K. ve Drinkwater, S. (2010). Patterns of Ethnic Self-Employment in Time and Space: Evidence from British Census Microdata. Small Business Economics, 34(3), 323-338.
• Dzomonda, O. ve Fatoki, O. (2018). Demystifying The Motivations Towards Hybrid Entrepreneurship Among the Working Populace In South Africa. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 24(4), 1-9.
• Folta, T. B., Delmar, F. ve Wennberg, K. (2010). Hybrid Entrepreneurship. Management Science, 56 (2), 253-269.
• Gray, C. (2005). Age effects on small firm growth and strategic objectives. Open Univ. Research Centre on Innovation, Knowledge and Development Working paper, 1, 1-15. http://www.open.ac.uk/ikd/sites/www.open.ac.uk.ikd/files/files/working-papers/ikd-working-paper-1.pdf, (Erişim: 05.07.2019).
• Gruenert, J. G. (1999). Second job entrepreneurs. Occupational Outlook Quarterly, 43(3), 18-26.
• Jan, M. A. (2017). The Emergence and Transformation of Batkhela Bazaar (Pakistan): Ethnic Entrepreneurship, Social Networks and Change in Underdeveloped Societies. Journal of South Asian Development, 12(3), 308-330.
• Kimmel, J. ve Smith Conway, K. (2001). Who moonlights and why? Evidence from the SIPP. Industrial Relations, 40 (1), 89-120.
• Koster, S., Markantoni, M. ve Strijker, D. (2010). Side Activity Entrepreneur: Lifestyle or Economic Oriented? Johansson, B., Karlsson, C. ve Stough, R.R. (Ed.), Agglomeration, Clusters and Entrepreneurship: Studies in Regional Economic Development içinde (s. 1- 18). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
• Küresel Girişimcilik Raporu (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor), (2016-2017). Global report 2016/17. London, England: Babson Park. https://www.gemconsortium.org/report/gem-2016-2017-global-report, (Erişim: 10.06.2019).
• Light, I. (1988–1989). Local economy and ethnic entrepreneurs. ISSR Working Papers in the Social Sciences, 4(13). https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2dr328b6, (Erişim: 04.04.2019).
• Lofstrom, M. (2002). Labor market assimilation and the self-employment decision of immigrant entrepreneurs. Journal of Population Economics, 15(1), 83-114.
• Marshall, D. R. (2018). The entrepreneurial-employee role interface: Exploring the effects of hybrid entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2018 (1), 16833. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2018.16833abstract, (Erişim: 10.05.2019).
• Marshall, D. R., Davis, W. D. ve Dibrell, C. (2016). Work to Work Enrichment: Employee Innovation through Hybrid Entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2016 (1), 11318. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2016.11318abstract, (Erişim: 10.05.2019).
• Martinez, M. A. ve Aldrich, H. E. (2011). Networking strategies for entrepreneurs: Balancing cohesion and diversity. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 17(1), 7-38.
• OECD (2018). Entrepreneurship at a Glance-Highlights, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://www.oecd.org/sdd/business-stats/EAG-2018-Highlights.pdf, (Erişim: 19.06.2019).
• Özafşarlıoğlu Sakallı, S. (2019). Girişimcilik Temel ve Yeni Yaklaşımlar. Özkara, B. ve Özafşarlıoğlu Sakallı, S. (Ed.) Melez (Hibrit) Girişimcilik içinde (s. 273-286). Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
• Petrova, K. (2012). Part-time entrepreneurship and financial constraints: evidence from the panel study of entrepreneurial dynamics. Small Business Economics, 39(2), 473–493.
• Powell, W.W. ve Sandholtz, K.W. (2012). Amphibious entrepreneurs and the emergence of organizational forms. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 6(2), 94-115.
• Raffiee, J. ve Feng, J. (2014). Should I quit My day job? A hybrid path to entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Journal, 57(4), 936-963.
• Schulz, M., Urbig, D. ve Procher, V. (2016). Hybrid Entrepreneurship and Public Policy: The Case of Firm Entry Deregulation. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(3), 272-286.
• Solesvik, M. Z. (2017). Hybrid Entrepreneurship: How and Why Entrepreneurs Combine Employment with Self-Employment. Technology Innovation Management Review, 7(3), 33-41.
• Thorgren, S., Nordström, C. ve Wincent, J. (2014). Hybrid Entrepreneurship: The Importance of Passion. Baltic Journal of Management, 9(3), 314-329.
• Thorgren, S., Siren, C., Nordström, C. ve Wincent, J. (2016). Hybrid Entrepreneurs’ Second-Step Choice: The Nonlinear Relationship between Age and Intention to Enter Full-Time Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 5(1), 14-18.
• Viljamaa, A. ve Varamaki, E. (2015). Do Persistent and Transitory Hybrid Entrepreneurs Differ? International Scholarly and Scientific Research and Innovation, 9(3), 936-940.
• Viljamaa, A., Varamaki, E., Tornikoski E. ve Sorama, K. (2014). Hybrid Entrepreneurship -Exploration of Motives, Ambitions and Growth. Proceedings of ICSB World Conference on Entrepreneurship, 11-14 Haziran 2014, Dublin.
• Waldinger, R. (1989). Structural Opportunity or Ethnic Advantage?, International Migration, 23(1), 83-102.
• Waldinger, R., Aldrich, H. ve Ward, R. (1990). Opportunities, group characteristics, and strategies. Waldinger, R., Aldrich, H. ve Ward, R. (eds), Ethnic Entrepreneurs: Immigrant Business in Industrial Societies içinde (s. 13-48). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.
• Watson, J. Gatewood, E. J. ve Lewis, K. (2014). A framework for assessing entrepreneurial outcomes: an international perspective. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 6(1), 2-14.
• Xi, G., Block, J., Lasch, F., Robert, F. ve Thurik, R. (2017). Mode of entry into hybrid entrepreneurship: New venture start-up versus business takeover. IZA Institute of Labor Economics, Discussion Paper Series.