Business Systems Research | Vol. 14 No.

1 |2023

Analysis of Entrepreneurial Behaviour in

Incubated Technology-Based Companies
Claudia de Freitas Michelin, Italo Fernando Minello, Julio Cezar Mairesse Siluk,
Vinícius Jaques Gerhardt, Fernando de Souza Savian
Federal University of Santa Maria, Brazil
Taís Bisognin Garlet
Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

Abstract
Background: The analysis of entrepreneurial behaviour in incubated technology-
based companies can help managers to understand their characteristics and how
these aspects can be maximized to increase the performance of the companies.
Objectives: This study proposes to measure the entrepreneurial behaviour of
managers of technology-based companies in incubators in southern Brazil facing
different stages of the business life cycle. Methods/Approach: The Analytic Hierarchy
Process is used to measure the entrepreneurial behaviour index of technology-based
companies’ managers throughout the stage of the business life cycle. Results: In the
early stages, entrepreneurs have ample self-confidence and are willing to make quick
decisions. In the intermediate stages, the entrepreneur shows greater persistence and
effort in the tasks. In the later stages, the entrepreneur acquires a greater sense of
group activity and punctuality in completing tasks. Conclusions: This study analyses
how managers demonstrate their entrepreneurial behaviour as the stages the
company experiences. The results can help managers better understand their
performance and actions reflected through their behaviours.
Keywords: entrepreneurial behaviour; technology-based companies; business life
cycle
JEL classification: L20
Paper type: Research article
Received: 2 Mar 2022
Accepted: 13 Aug 2022
Acknowledgements: The authors thank CNPq, CAPES and FAPERGS for supporting this
research. The authors thank editors and reviewers for their suggestions for this article.
Citation: de Freitas Michelin, C., Minello, I.F., Mairesse Siluk, J.C., Gerhardt, V.J., de
Souza Savian, F., Garlet, T.B. (2023). Analysis of Entrepreneurial Behaviour in Incubated
Technology-based Companies. Business Systems Research, 14(1), 54-71.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/bsrj-2023-0003

54
 Business Systems Research | Vol. 14 No. 1 |2023

Introduction
The entrepreneurial characteristics present in managers of companies are essential
for the development of innovation and business performance (Ahmed et al., 2018).
Peng et al. (2018) state that entrepreneurial behaviour impacts the economic growth
of society and connects with innovation and technology. In this context, technology-
based companies stand out for their use of innovation and technology, depending
on these factors for internal decision-making and external business development
(Kaplan & Vakili, 2015).
The capital-intensive investments in incubators' infrastructure seek to facilitate the
emergence of technology-based companies by aiding access to markets and
developing ideas (Bliemel et al., 2019). Besides, the potential to develop human and
social capital can influence the incubated environments of technology-based
companies (Wynn & Jones, 2019). Thus, the entrepreneurs' intellectual capital and
behavioural characteristics are crucial during their business's several moments. Pujol-
Cols and Dabos (2020) state that emotionally stable individuals focus on their success
and the most favourable aspects of their jobs rather than their failures.
Studying entrepreneurial behaviour has been an essential topic in entrepreneurship
(Zhang et al., 2015). Kim and Chung (2017) highlight that the research about
entrepreneurial behaviour focuses on individuals' more active roles during innovation
implementation. This concept considers that individuals' requisite knowledge, skills,
and experience effectively engage in entrepreneurship.
In technology-based companies, analyzing characteristics of entrepreneurial
behaviour is relevant to increasing business performance and competitiveness
throughout its life cycle. Gupta et al. (2019) provide evidence supporting the notion
that companies led by managers adept at capturing entrepreneurial aspects of
decision-making practices and managerial trends demonstrate superior
performance. McClelland (1987) notes that entrepreneurs are differentiated
individuals with characteristics distributed in three actions: realization, planning, or
power.
According to Rodrigo et al. (2018), the primary motivations driving entrepreneurial
activities include pursuing independence, career advancement, economic
necessity, expertise in the field, market opportunities, increased leisure time, and self-
realization. Claver-Cortés et al. (2015) identify the most critical human capital for
companies and which indicators can assist in their measurement. These articles point
to the growth of academic interest in entrepreneurial behaviour and concerns about
how it should face the different stages of the business cycle. However, few studies
associate entrepreneurial behaviour with performance measurement in technology-
based companies.
Eijdenberg et al. (2019) highlight that existing research has predominantly
examined institutions through social, political, economic, geographical, and ethnic
lenses, thereby underscoring a dearth of studies focusing on entrepreneurial behavior
and resilience in demanding institutional contexts. There is a gap in identifying how
managers of technology-based companies behave as the business develops. So, this
study aims to measure the entrepreneurial behaviour of managers of incubated
technology-based companies facing the different stages of the business life cycle.
This study contributes to theory through a method to measure the entrepreneurial
behaviour level of 31 managers of 7 incubated technology-based companies in
southern Brazil. Moreover, this study understands human behaviour while managers
participate in complex systems such as incubated technology-based companies and
analyses performance characteristics to guarantee the success of the businesses. This
study also shows that entrepreneurs' behaviour and emotions directly influence

55
 Business Systems Research | Vol. 14 No. 1 |2023

business success and points out that organizational performance must be measured
from several perspectives, including in the behavioural field.

Theoretical background
One of the main factors that measure the level of competitiveness and performance
is human capital, specifically the levels of entrepreneurs' leadership, innovative spirit,
and team cohesion (Xiao & Zhao, 2017). These aspects represent some of the essential
characteristics for the development of an entrepreneur. As stated by Isichei et al.
(2020), it is essential to understand and strengthen entrepreneurs' internal
characteristics and capabilities to ensure significant gains for companies.
Kirkley (2016) states that entrepreneurial behavior encompasses values and needs
that foster intrinsic motivation and self-determination. Studies examining entrepreneurs
and their impact on national economic development reveal that individuals
exhibiting entrepreneurial behavior tend to display increased confidence and
courage in taking risks, leading them to make decisions that yield valuable
experiences (Bockorny & Youssef-Morgan, 2019).
Theoretically, personal entrepreneurial characteristics are defined by the United
Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) as a set of ten attributes
identified by McClelland (1987). UNCTAD is an institution belonging to the UN (United
Nations), representing one of the leading organizations developing projects for
inclusive and sustainable development. Thus, entrepreneurial behaviour has well-
defined characteristics supported by a global institution. Despite this, the opportunities
and obstacles encountered throughout a company's development can define how
managers develop their entrepreneurial behaviour (Adizes et al., 2017).
According to Michelin et al. (2021), managers' behaviour can be influenced by the
phase the company goes through, interfering with the company's results and
performance. The different situations present during the stages experienced by
companies justify the importance of business life cycle analysis.
Since the business life cycle interferes with the manager's behaviour, it was
considered an essential variable for data compilation. de Oliveira Reis et al. (2018)
highlight that most research evaluates the business life cycle according to the time
companies remain active in the market. Given the different approaches expressed in
the literature, Fisk's (2008) method was chosen because it comprises a dynamic
market view and is used in companies' practical contexts.
Figure 1 shows a possible scenario for a company involving all stages. Though each
stage results from its age, size, and performance, its structure and sophistication can
also be characterized. Each company's evolution level is different, depending on the
type of business. There are other priorities and challenges, propositions, and the
managers' level of investment at each stage.
Recognizing the influence of the business life cycle on the behaviour of company
managers (Adizes et al., 2017; Michelin et al., 2021), the particularities of certain
companies can also determine the behaviour of managers. Incubated technology-
based companies cultivate a culture of decision-making based on innovative and
technological processes (Kaplan & Vakili, 2015). These companies need managers
with entrepreneurial behaviour to work with the different challenges found in their
niche. Creativity, opportunity identification, initiative, perseverance, and teamwork
are characteristics needed for technology-based companies to thrive (Lopes & Sassi,
2019).

56
 Business Systems Research | Vol. 14 No. 1 |2023

Figure 1
Business life cycle proposed by Fisk (2008)

Source: Fisk (2008)

The challenges technology-based companies encounter at different stages of the

business life cycle influence the behaviour of managers. Characteristics in
McClelland's (1987) proposal of entrepreneurial behaviour may define how managers
maintain the habits that determine the companies' performance.

Methods
Studies using different quantitative methods have been observed in the academic
literature on entrepreneurial behaviour in managers of companies. Badri and
Hachicha (2019) conducted a study investigating the influence of entrepreneurship
education on students' inclination to start their businesses. Ataei et al. (2020)
evaluated the impact of young people's entrepreneurial skills in creating new
businesses through the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process method.
Multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) contributes precisely to help make this
process less complicated by having tools that elucidate the cause-and-effect
relationships on the decision-maker's preferences, increasing knowledge about the
problem (Love et al., 2015). Zhü (2014) says that the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
method is an adequate tool for measuring intangibles side by side with the tangibles
and a widely used multicriteria tool in the decision-making of defining priorities.
Through this analysis, none of the methods already published in the literature aims
to measure managers' entrepreneurial behaviour of technology-based companies.
Also, it is noted that the MCDA methods can assist in measuring entrepreneurial
behaviour to better understand the manager's perception at each stage of the
business life cycle. Thus, the proposed method uses the Analytic Hierarchy Process and
Key Performance Indicators (KPI) concepts to measure the entrepreneurial behaviour
of managers of technology-based companies.

57
 Business Systems Research | Vol. 14 No. 1 |2023

The development of the method consists of four main steps. They include the
decision tree construction, the modelling calibration, the building and application of
the model, and the result analysis. Figure 2 shows the research flowchart.

Figure 2
Research flowchart

Source: Authors’ work

Decision tree
The proposed decision tree was elaborated from the Characteristics of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour (CEB) by McClelland (1987) and adapted from the United
Nations Conference on Trade and Development Division on Investment and Enterprise
(2021).
Three dimensions are related to McClelland’s and are defined as Fundamental
Points of View (FPV): Realization, Planning and Power. They are deployed in 10
characteristics that reflect the Critical Success Factors (CSF), which are extended to
50 KPIs related to entrepreneurial behaviour.
Figure 3 shows the decision tree representing the hierarchical structure for
evaluating the manager's entrepreneurial behaviour in a technology-based
company, culminating in the decision tree study.

58
 Business Systems Research | Vol. 14 No. 1 |2023

Figure 3
Decision tree

Source: Authors’ work

Calibration of KPIs
The stage of the company’s business life cycle influences the result of its manager’s
entrepreneurial behaviour. Thus, KPIs' must be calibrated, so weights were defined for
each of them using the AHP methodology to reflect the company’s stage (Saaty,
1980). In the next step, each KPI will have a multiplier factor to make the manager’s
entrepreneurial behaviour appropriate to their reality.

59
 Business Systems Research | Vol. 14 No. 1 |2023

The questionnaire was applied to managers of 31 technology-based companies.

The questions encouraged respondents to compare each CSF's KPIs in a paired way
to meet the criteria for starting the calculation using the AHP methodology.
Respondents needed to score KPIs on a scale of importance so that 1 represents equal
importance, 3 represents marginally strong importance, 5 represents strong
importance, 7 represents very strong importance, and 9 represents extremely strong
importance. Besides, managers could select intermediate importance values (2, 4, 6,
and 8) (Saaty, 1980). Figure 4 shows how the questions were presented to managers.

Figure 4
Questions of CSF 1.1

Source: Authors’ work

The questionnaires' results were entered into a spreadsheet in the ExcelTM software,
modelled to perform AHP calculations. The AHP method decomposes problems into
a hierarchy of qualitative and quantitative criteria, facilitates the analysis, and
compares alternative solutions to selected criteria. In this case, the first level comprises
the problem to be solved or the decision's goal. The second level corresponds to the
criteria that influence the decision (de Oliveira & Martins, 2015).
The steps used to calculate the KPI indexes followed Zanardo et al. (2018)’s
methodology. The consistency ratio index (CR) was used to verify the decision-maker's
data when deciding the criteria’ priority. If CR is equal to or lower than 10%, then the
data is consistent (Saaty, 1980), and the questionnaire must be applied again with the
manager. In this study, all the consistency ratio indexes were lower than 10%,
indicating that the data is consistent.

60
 Business Systems Research | Vol. 14 No. 1 |2023

After data collection was conducted in the 31 companies, and the calculations
performed were consistent, the KPIs’ weights were calculated. Each manager
selected at which stage of Fisk's (2008) business life cycle the company was at that
moment. In each stage of the cycle, the importance of each KPI can be different, so
this analysis is essential to understand the company's characteristics. So, the average
of each KPI for each stage of the business life cycle was calculated. These values were
used as a multiplier factor in the next step to calculate the managers' entrepreneurial
behaviour.

Calculation of the indicators of entrepreneurial behaviour

The second survey questionnaire was applied based on McClelland's (1987)
entrepreneurial characteristics in this stage. This data collection instrument refers to a
structured questionnaire that approaches the indicators from Annex A and consists of
a series of questions answered by the respondent without interference from the
researcher (Triviños, 2008). This questionnaire is used in the projects developed by the
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development Division on Investment and
Enterprise in more than 27 countries. This study used McClelland's (1987) questionnaire
to measure entrepreneurial behaviour since this is the most comprehensive and
applicable model.
The survey had multiple-choice questions for each indicator. It enabled the
creation of a ranking of importance among the indicators. Consequently, evaluating
and comparing the participating managers' performance was possible since the
instrument allowed standardized data collection. The performance was assessed from
each indicator and also globally. The entrepreneurial characteristics and behaviours
were identified in each stage of the business life cycle. Equation 1 shows how
entrepreneurial behaviour was calculated for each technology-based company.

(1)

where:

c = the company's entrepreneurial behaviour;

v = value obtained for KPI j in the second data collection;
j = KPI number for a given CSF;
m = CSF number of a given FPV;
i = FPV number;
p1 = weight of each KPI [obtained through the AHP calculation (first questionnaire)];
p2 = weight of each CSF (standard for each FPV – Table 1);
p3 = weight of each FPV (standard – Table 1)

The value attributed to each KPI by managers in the second questionnaire was
multiplied by the KPI weight previously calculated in the calibration step. It
represented the stage of the business life cycle in which the company is. The sum of
each CSF's KPI product was multiplied by the weight assigned to the corresponding
CSF, equivalent to the number of CSFs each FPV has. Finally, the sum of the products
of CSFs was multiplied by the weight of each FPV, which was defined proportionally
to the number of CSFs that comprise them. This calculation generated the manager's

61
 Business Systems Research | Vol. 14 No. 1 |2023

entrepreneurial behaviour. Table 1 shows the weights assigned to the CSFs and FPVs
used during the calculation.

Table 1
Weight of CSF and FPV
FPV Weight attributed to FPV Weight attributed to each CSF
Realization 50% 20%
Planning 30% 33%
Power 20% 50%
Source: Authors’ work

Results
Stage of the business cycle of companies
This section presents the analysis of the results obtained by applying the methodology
of evaluating the manager’s entrepreneurial behaviour, facing the different business
life cycle stages. Managers of technology-based companies were considered the unit
of analysis, and the respondents' selection was made intentionally.
All of the incubators are located in higher education institutions since companies
linked to educational institutions provide interaction among research groups, expand
the network of contacts, and enable the exchange of knowledge. Thus, the sample
consists of managers of 31 companies in seven incubators from five cities in Southern
Brazil.
The first question to the managers was: What stage of the business life cycle is your
company currently experiencing? In this way, the concepts of each stage of the
business life cycle of the Fisk (2008) model were presented. The managers indicated
which stage the company was experiencing. Table 2 shows the result of the
application of the question.

Table 2
Number of technology-based companies in each stage of the business life cycle
Stage of the business life cycle Number of technology-based companies
Create 8
Launch 5
Stabilise 9
Extend 3
Mature 1
Evolve 5
Exit 0
Source: Authors’ work

Model construction and application

The KPIs analysis allowed the evaluation of each factor's impact on the managers'
entrepreneurial behaviour. Table 3 shows the three KPIs with the highest
predominance for each stage of the business life cycle and their average percentage
impact.

62
 Business Systems Research | Vol. 14 No. 1 |2023

Table 3
KPIs with the highest predominance by the stage of the business life cycle
Stage of the KPI Average
business life predominance
cycle
3.2.1. I am confident that I can succeed in any
32.90%
activity that proposes me to perform.
1.2.2. I insist several times on getting other people
Create 31.83%
to do what I want.
1.1.1. I strive to accomplish the things that must be
30.00%
done.
2.2.3. I make decisions without wasting time
31.95%
looking for information.
Launch 1.2.2. I insist several times on getting other people
31.17%
to do what I want.
1.3.1. I finish my work/activity on time. 28.59%
1.1.1. I strive to accomplish the things that must be
28.40%
done.
Stabilise 1.2.2. I insist several times on getting other people
28.08%
to do what I want.
2.1.4. I count on a clear plan of life. 28.03%
1.4.5. I find the fastest way to finish work at home
37.56%
and at work/college.
2.3.1. I plan a large project by dividing it into
33.41%
Extend simpler tasks.
1.4.4. I'm never really satisfied with how things are
done; I always think there is a better way to do 33.30%
them.
2.3.1. I plan a large project by dividing it into
47.20%
simpler tasks.
1.4.5. I find the fastest way to finish work at home
Mature 46.41%
and at work/college.
1.3.3. If necessary, I do not mind doing the work of
46.41%
others to meet a deadline.
1.3.1. I finish my work/activity on time. 37.35%
1.2.2. I insist several times on getting other people
34.80%
to do what I want.
Evolve
2.1.3. The more specific my expectations are
concerning what I want to achieve, the greater 31.19%
my chances of success.
Source: Authors’ work

Through this analysis, it was possible to perceive that the indicator that most impact
the managers' entrepreneurial behaviour in the Creation stage is confidence in
obtaining success in any activity. Managers need a strong belief in the value of what
they are trying to accomplish to overcome the initial rejection of their innovations.
Thus, when people have confidence in their ability to perform specific tasks, they are
more likely to take the initiative, face challenging situations, and have more significant
risks, leading to higher returns (Neto et al., 2018; Piperopoulos & Dimov, 2015).
The most striking indicator of managers' entrepreneurial behaviour for companies
in the Launch stage is making decisions without wasting time searching for information.
Nandram et al. (2018) relate the managers' rapid decision-making to the "context of
intuition". This result is supported by Robert Mitchell et al. (2005), who attest that
entrepreneurs often use intuition to explain their actions. The use of intuition is directly

63
 Business Systems Research | Vol. 14 No. 1 |2023

related to identifying opportunities. On the other hand, the result found in this study,
which reflects the behaviours of incubated entrepreneurs and, therefore, connected
to more significant opportunities, contrasts in parts with Ardichvili et al. (2003) afirmam
que os empresários individuais consideravam a identificação de oportunidades
significativamente mais crucial do que os empresários ligados em rede. Além disso,
os empresários individuais consideravam-se mais criativos e estavam mais dispostos a
dedicar tempo específico a actividades criativas.
In the Stabilize stage, the indicator that most impacts managers' entrepreneurial
behaviour is the effort applied in carrying out the activities. This factor relates to
entrepreneurial intent and indicates to what extent an individual is motivated to
engage in entrepreneurial behaviour and invest in business management activities
(Neneh, 2019). Shirokova et al. (2016) argue that the more time and effort devoted to
accomplishing a task, the more likely it will be to achieve and succeed. Fried and
Tauer (2015) say that business success can be measured through the owner hours'
variable, which measures the entrepreneur's commitment and effort to run the
company.
Finding the fastest way to finish work at home and work/college is the predominant
indicator of entrepreneurial behaviour and significantly impacts the companies'
Expand stage. In general, most small business managers tend to address competing
work and life demands ad hoc manner, lacking a structured or planned approach to
managing these responsibilities. Home-based technology has subliminally extended
the day's work for these entrepreneurs as they engage in more work-at-home. This
situation reflects that entrepreneurs in fast-growing companies seek increasingly more
immediate results, taking work to do at home.
Planning a project through its unfolding in more straightforward tasks is the primary
indicator of entrepreneurial behaviour in the Mature stage. Martens et al. (2018)
support this assertion by emphasizing that managers of companies face mounting
complexities, necessitating the adoption of highly competitive strategies and project
execution through escalated activities to effectively respond to rapidly changing
market dynamics. Implementing project-based activities within the organizational
environment is commonly accompanied by strategies that foster evolution and
comprehend their impact on business performance and success. Thus, as project
activities are successful, organizational results can be favoured, contributing to
technology-based companies' performance, efficiency, innovation, and
development (Yang et al., 2014).
In the Evolve stage, the indicator of entrepreneurial behaviour with the most
significant impact was finishing work/activity on time. Punctuality is one of the primary
non-cognitive skills that positively impact the success of technology-based companies
(Alva, 2019). Also, Bluedorn and Martin (2008) concluded that the fewer activities are
carried out, the more likely it is to be punctual in delivering the activities to be fulfilled
by the entrepreneurs. On the other hand, the higher number of jobs developed
simultaneously tends to cause the managers to perform the activities demanded in a
shorter time than if the activities were done in isolation.

Entrepreneurial behaviour by the stage of the business life cycle

Analyzing leading indicators of performance and critical success factors allowed us
to find the overall index of each manager's entrepreneurial behaviour, which
corresponds to the critical success factor's proportionality from the fundamental point
of view. Table 4 shows the entrepreneurial behaviour of each company’s managers
studied and the average rate per stage of the business life cycle.

64
 Business Systems Research | Vol. 14 No. 1 |2023

Table 4
Managers’ entrepreneurial behaviour by the stage of the business life cycle
Stage of the The average index Index of managers’ Technology-based
business life cycle of managers’ entrepreneurial companies
entrepreneurial behaviour
behaviour
Create 80.70% 84.12% Auster
83.93% Conífera
81.30% Diferencial
79.72% Fisalis
70.90% Fox
74.52% MachPal
89.52% Tecknogelatto
81.57% TecSynthesis
Launch 79.45% 82.99% Chemweg
83.33% Expin
80.42% Mais Gestão
74.81% Mercateria
75.70% Qiron Robotics
Stabilise 79.33% 76.51% Café
88.97% Conplan
79.75% Cowmed
79.01% Dillon
80.84% GCB Drone
82.36% Pizetta
82.48% Soha On Taxi
68.27% Taskka
75.76% XL7
Extend 80.52% 85.29% Polvo Louco
76.85% Sonnen
79.41% WeeVee
Mature 91.29% 91.29% Seven
Evolve 82.44% 88.53% Agener
78.08% Enovative
81.91% FP2
77.81% Perseus
85.87% SRA
Source: Authors’ work

This analysis showed that the average entrepreneurial behaviour rates are higher in
the business life cycle's final stages. It should be noted that only one company was
identified as belonging to the mature stage, explaining the highest index. Conversely,
Riviezzo et al. (2019) contend that managers of companies with a longer operating
history are more inclined to exhibit deeply ingrained entrepreneurial behaviour.
Furthermore, as the company evolves into a well-organized and disciplined business,
the founding team must establish the groundwork for a rapidly expanding enterprise,
building credibility and acquiring vital resources for growth (Picken, 2017b). It requires
managers to adjust their leadership style and management behaviour and have
experience and competence to deal with strategic direction and market positioning
(Picken, 2017a).
The Create stage also exhibited a notable level of entrepreneurial behavior, as it
involves significant engagement in business creation, product launch, and pursuit of
expansion opportunities during the initial stages. In the early stages of the cycle,
managers must build networks with actors to develop and communicate with

65
 Business Systems Research | Vol. 14 No. 1 |2023

academia and businesses to accelerate research and technology transfer (Pettersen

& Tobiassen, 2012). Entrepreneurs must proactively manage their company's social
capital in business creation to foster knowledge acquisition and establish a
competitive advantage. They should also encourage the exchange of knowledge
between the company and its customers to form a basis for alliances that can lead
to even more excellent opportunities for wealth generation (Pettersen & Tobiassen,
2012). Also, the entrepreneurs' research and business planning activities, through
generating new ideas for products or services, continue to be essential for the
company's performance throughout the business life cycle (Baron et al., 2016).
The intermediate stages of the cycle presented the lowest entrepreneurial
behaviour rates among the business life cycle stages. These steps are marked when a
company gains strength in the market and represent a bridge between the vaguely
structured informality of a technology-based company and the formal and disciplined
form required for rapid scaling. So, there is a substantial increase in managers'
challenges since new resources must be developed, and partnerships must be
established to make the business sustainable (Picken, 2017b). That is why managers
need to create effective planning in the early stages of their business life cycle. They
must identify potential milestones and obstacles and align their functional objectives
with their companies' organizational goals so that the materialization of results and
their entrepreneurial behaviour indices are more significant in the business life cycle's
intermediate stages (Păunescu & Badea, 2014).

Conclusion
Summary of research
Entrepreneurial behavioural characteristics are fundamental for developing
technology-based companies, influencing the business's success. In the initial stage of
incubated companies' operation, measuring these characteristics helps managers
verify how they can evolve and their impact. Thus, the study proposed and tested a
model to measure and evaluate managers' entrepreneurial behaviour in technology-
based companies. This model was successfully tested in 31 companies, obtaining data
from all its managers. Study findings demonstrate that all entrepreneurs present
McClelland's (1987) features. The behavioural perspective can guide managers'
decision-making and help them achieve higher performance indices, making their
companies more competitive.
The questionnaires applied to the managers of technology-based companies
verified their entrepreneurial behaviours in their actions, the constant search for
competitiveness, permanence in the market, intention to leave a legacy, and
improved development and economic growth. Thus, technology-based companies
that enjoy the structure, networking, and mentoring from business incubators and avail
themselves of universities' specific knowledge may have a competitive advantage
during the business's initial stages.
The managers highlight the search for opportunity and initiative, persistence,
commitment, goal setting, information search and persuasion, contact networks,
independence, and autonomy. Besides, managers cited other entrepreneurial
behaviour features not named by the researchers, such as discernment, pragmatism,
resilience, empathy, communication skills, and observation.

Implications for theory and practice

The results of this study improve the understanding of the entrepreneur in the
organizational context. It happens because its characteristics can be affected by

66
 Business Systems Research | Vol. 14 No. 1 |2023

environmental changes and the different stages experienced in its business. The study
makes a new contribution by proposing an original method to measure the
entrepreneurial behaviour of managers of technology-based companies throughout
the business life cycle. Hence, this study generates opportunities for entrepreneurs and
their companies and advances for the scientific community, reinforcing that the union
between universities, companies, and society can contribute efficiently to economic
development.
This study provides some recommendations that give the managers of technology-
based companies better understand their performance and their actions reflected
through their behaviour. This comprehension can develop skills, address gaps, seek
improvements, reduce uncertainties, favour the business's success, and contribute to
technology-based companies' growth and economic development. Thus, the model
developed in this paper offers a rich set of data and different types of results that can
be explored, analyzed, and adapted to measure other intangible assets'
performance.
Besides, a study involving performance measurement and intangible assets helps
technology-based companies to position themselves competitively. Tripathi et al.
(2019) emphasise that human capital is essential in the technology-based company
ecosystem analysis. Studies have shown that entrepreneurs' emotions and behaviours
significantly influence business development and success (Wang et al., 2019). So,
performance can be measured from many perspectives, including in the behavioural
sphere.

Limitations and suggestions for future research

Although this study provides significant contributions, the results must be analyzed
within some factors that limited its development. One of the limitations concerns the
non-existence of companies classified in the Exit stage within the business life cycle of
the analyzed sample. Also, the study did not represent many business incubators in
southern Brazil. Moreover, it is noteworthy that although the study was developed in
Southern Brazil, the conclusions can be extended to other emerging economies with
similar characteristics.
The knowledge and results obtained during this research's development can
generate a new study, which involves applying the proposed model to analyze
entrepreneurial behaviour in other sectors. It is possible to adjust the model to measure
other intangible assets and deepen the diffusion of other undefined characteristics
since their definitions address the abilities and ways of acting that contribute to the
entrepreneurial individual's development.

References
1. Adizes, I., Cudanov, M., & Rodic, D. (2017). Timing of proactive organizational consulting:
difference between organizational perception and behaviour. Amfiteatru Economic,
19(44), 232.
2. Ahmed, U., Shah, S. A., Qureshi, M. A., Shah, M. H., & Khuwaja, F. M. (2018). Nurturing
innovation performance through corporate entrepreneurship: The moderation of
employee engagement. Studies in Business and Economics, 13(2), 20-30.
https://doi.org/10.2478/sbe-2018-0017
3. Alva, E. P. (2019). What is a good worker? Non-cognitive skills and trade microenterprises’
success. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 27(4), 986-1003.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-06-2018-1449
4. Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., & Ray, S. (2003). A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity
identification and development. Journal of Business venturing, 18(1), 105-123.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(01)00068-4

67
 Business Systems Research | Vol. 14 No. 1 |2023

5. Ataei, P., Karimi, H., Ghadermarzi, H., & Norouzi, A. (2020). A conceptual model of
entrepreneurial competencies and their impacts on rural youth's intention to launch SMEs.
Journal of Rural Studies, 75, 185-195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.01.023
6. Badri, R., & Hachicha, N. (2019). Entrepreneurship education and its impact on students’
intention to start up: A sample case study of students from two Tunisian universities. The
International Journal of Management Education, 17(2), 182-190.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2019.02.004
7. Baron, R. A., Mueller, B. A., & Wolfe, M. T. (2016). Self-efficacy and entrepreneurs' adoption
of unattainable goals: The restraining effects of self-control. Journal of business venturing,
31(1), 55-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2015.08.002
8. Bliemel, M., Flores, R., De Klerk, S., & Miles, M. P. (2019). Accelerators as start-up infrastructure
for entrepreneurial clusters. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 31(1-2), 133-149.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2018.1537152
9. Bluedorn, A. C., & Martin, G. (2008). The time frames of entrepreneurs. Journal of Business
Venturing, 23(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2006.05.005
10. Bockorny, K., & Youssef-Morgan, C. M. (2019). Entrepreneurs’ courage, psychological
capital, and life satisfaction. Frontiers in psychology, 789.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00789
11. Claver-Cortés, E., Zaragoza-Sáez, P. C., Molina-Manchón, H., & Úbeda-García, M. (2015).
Intellectual capital in family firms: human capital identification and measurement. Journal
of Intellectual Capital, 16(1), 199-223. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-04-2014-0046
12. de Oliveira Reis, C. F., Silva, W. A. C., de Oliveira Santos, A., & Amaral, H. F. (2018). Proposta
de instrumento para análise dos fatores de sucesso do ciclo de vida da organização e do
processo empreendedor: uma análise da percepção dos empresários da Mesorregião do
Norte de Minas Gerais. Revista Gestão & Tecnologia, 18(3), 97-118.
13. de Oliveira, V. H. M., & Martins, C. H. (2015). Ahp: ferramenta multicritério para tomada de
decisão-shopping centers. Appris Editora e Livraria Eireli-ME.
14. Eijdenberg, E. L., Thompson, N. A., Verduijn, K., & Essers, C. (2019). Entrepreneurial activities
in a developing country: an institutional theory perspective. International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 25(3), 414-432. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-12-2016-
0418
15. Fisk, P. (2008). Business genius: A more inspired approach to business growth. John Wiley &
Sons.
16. Fried, H. O., & Tauer, L. W. (2015). An entrepreneur performance index. Journal of
Productivity Analysis, 44, 69-77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11123-015-0436-0
17. Gupta, S., Chen, H., Hazen, B. T., Kaur, S., & Gonzalez, E. D. S. (2019). Circular economy and
big data analytics: A stakeholder perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 144, 466-474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.06.030
18. Isichei, E. E., Emmanuel Agbaeze, K., & Odiba, M. O. (2020). Entrepreneurial orientation and
performance in SMEs: The mediating role of structural infrastructure capability. International
Journal of Emerging Markets, 15(6), 1219-1241. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-08-2019-0671
19. Kaplan, S., & Vakili, K. (2015). The double‐edged sword of recombination in breakthrough
innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 36(10), 1435-1457.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2294
20. Kim, J. S., & Chung, G. H. (2017). Implementing innovations within organizations: A
systematic review and research agenda. Innovation, 19(3), 372-399.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2017.1335943
21. Kirkley, W. W. (2016). Entrepreneurial behaviour: the role of values. International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 22(3), 290-328. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-02-2015-
0042
22. Lopes, W. S., & Sassi, R. J. (2019). Development of technology-based firms of the Vale do
Paraíba Paulista region: survey with incubators managers and incubated companies.
Gestão & Produção, 26. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-530X1302-19
23. Love, P. E., Liu, J., Matthews, J., Sing, C. P., & Smith, J. (2015). Future proofing PPPs: Life-cycle
performance measurement and building information modelling. Automation in
Construction, 56, 26-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2015.04.008

68
 Business Systems Research | Vol. 14 No. 1 |2023

24. Martens, C. D. P., Machado, F. J., Martens, M. L., & de Freitas, H. M. R. (2018). Linking
entrepreneurial orientation to project success. International Journal of Project
Management, 36(2), 255-266.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.10.005
25. McClelland, D. C. (1987). Characteristics of Successful Entrepreneurs. Journal of Creative
Behavior, 21, 219-233. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1987.tb00479.x
26. Michelin, C. F., Minello, I. F, Siluk, J. C. M., Santos, J. R, Gerhardt, V.J and Stieler, E.G (2021).
Mensuração do comportamento empreendedor como norteador de competitividade
em startups na fase inicial do negócio. Revista Espacios, 42(2), 167–184.
https://doi.org/10.48082/espacios-a21v42n02p14
27. Mitchell, J. R., Friga, P. N., & Mitchell, R. K. (2005). Untangling the intuition mess: Intuition as
a construct in entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 29(6), 653-
679. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00102.x
28. Nandram, S. S., Mourmont, G., Norlyk Smith, E., Heaton, D. P., & Bindlish, P. K. (2018).
Understanding entrepreneurial decision-making by objectivizing subtle cues. Journal of
management, spirituality & religion, 15(5), 398-423.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14766086.2018.1503088
29. Neneh, B. N. (2019). From entrepreneurial alertness to entrepreneurial behavior: The role of
trait competitiveness and proactive personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 138,
273-279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.10.020
30. Neto, R. D. C. A., Rodrigues, V. P., Stewart, D., Xiao, A., & Snyder, J. (2018). The influence of
self-efficacy on entrepreneurial behavior among K-12 teachers. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 72, 44-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.02.012
31. Păunescu, C., & Badea, M. R. (2014). Examining the social capital content and structure in
the pre-start-up planning. Procedia Economics and Finance, 15, 560-568.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s2212-5671(14)00510-3
32. Peng, M. W., Sun, W., Vlas, C., Minichilli, A., & Corbetta, G. (2018). An institution-based view
of large family firms: A recap and overview. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 42(2),
187-205. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258717749234.
33. Pettersen, I. B., & Tobiassen, A. E. (2012). Are born globals really born globals? The case of
academic spin-offs with long development periods. Journal of International
Entrepreneurship, 10, 117-141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-012-0086-5
34. Picken, J. C. (2017a). From founder to CEO: An entrepreneur's roadmap. Business Horizons,
60(1), 7-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2016.09.004
35. Picken, J. C. (2017b). From startup to scalable enterprise: Laying the foundation. Business
Horizons, 60(5), 587-595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2017.05.002
36. Piperopoulos, P., & Dimov, D. (2015). Burst bubbles or build steam? Entrepreneurship
education, entrepreneurial self‐efficacy, and entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of small
business management, 53(4), 970-985. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12116
37. Pujol-Cols, L., & Dabos, G. E. (2020). Dispositional and situational factors at work: A
validation of scales and examination of effects on job satisfaction. Academia Revista
Latinoamericana de Administración, 33(1), 49-70. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARLA-12-2017-
0355
38. Riviezzo, A., Santos, S. C., Liñán, F., Napolitano, M. R., & Fusco, F. (2019). European
universities seeking entrepreneurial paths: the moderating effect of contextual variables on
the entrepreneurial orientation-performance relationship. Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, 141, 232-248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.10.011
39. Rodrigo, L. M., Romaní, G., & Ricci, E. (2018). Immigrant entrepreneurs in Antofagasta, Chile:
The contribution of South-South entrepreneurs. Academia Revista Latinoamericana de
Administración, 31(3), 450-470. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARLA-11-2016-0301
40. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process, New York: Mcgrew hill. International,
Translated to Russian, Portuguesses and Chinese, Revised edition, Paperback (1996, 2000),
Pittsburgh: RWS Publications, 9, 19-22.
41. Shirokova, G., Osiyevskyy, O., & Bogatyreva, K. (2016). Exploring the intention–behavior link
in student entrepreneurship: Moderating effects of individual and environmental
characteristics. European Management Journal, 34(4), 386-399.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2015.12.007

69
 Business Systems Research | Vol. 14 No. 1 |2023

42. Tripathi, N., Oivo, M., Liukkunen, K., & Markkula, J. (2019). Startup ecosystem effect on
minimum viable product development in software startups. Information and Software
Technology, 114, 77-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2019.06.008
43. Triviños, A. N. S. (2008). Introdução à pesquisa em ciências sociais: a pesquisa qualitativa
em Educação. São Paulo: Atlas, 2010. UFRGS. Cadastro de crianças, adolescentes e
adultos em situação de rua e estudo do mundo da população adulta em situação de rua
de Porto Alegre/RS. Porto Alegre.
44. Wang, Y., Tsai, C. H., Lin, D. D., Enkhbuyant, O., & Cai, J. (2019). Effects of human, relational,
and psychological capitals on new venture performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1071.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01071
45. Wynn, M., & Jones, P. (2019). Context and entrepreneurship in knowledge transfer
partnerships with small business enterprises. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship
and Innovation, 20(1), 8-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1465750318771319
46. Xiao, J., & Zhao, Y. (2017, July). Key intellectual capital factors of competitiveness for
startups: evidence from China. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on
Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management & Organisational Learning (pp. 301-309).
47. Yang, L. R., Huang, C. F., & Hsu, T. J. (2014). Knowledge leadership to improve project and
organizational performance. International Journal of Project Management, 32(1), 40-53.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.01.01
48. Zanardo, R. P., Siluk, J. C. M., de Souza Savian, F., & Schneider, P. S. (2018). Energy audit
model based on a performance evaluation system. Energy, 154, 544-552.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.04.179
49. Zhang, P., Wang, D. D., & Owen, C. L. (2015). A study of entrepreneurial intention of
university students. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 5(1), 61-82.
https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2014-0004
50. Zhü, K. (2014). Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: Fallacy of the popular methods. European
Journal of Operational Research, 236(1), 209-217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2013.10.034

70
 Business Systems Research | Vol. 14 No. 1 |2023

About the authors

Claudia de Freitas Michelin graduated in Accounting from the Integrated Units of
Higher Education in Vale do Jacuí (1996), Specialisation in Management and Business
Strategy from the Lutherano do Brasil University - ULBRA (2006). Master in Production
Engineering from the Federal University of Santa Maria - UFSM (2018). She works as an
Adjunct Professor at the Federal University of Santa Maria - UFSM (2019), at the Center
for Social and Human Sciences, Accounting Course. The author can be contacted at
[email protected]
Italo Fernando Minello has a Ph.D. in Business Administration from São Paulo University
in 2010. He is currently an adjunct professor at the Department of Administrative
Sciences at UFSM, professor of the Graduate Program in Administration at UFSM,
coordinator of the research group “Entrepreneurial Management and Human
Behaviour in Organizations” (GPECOM) and member of the Academy of
Entrepreneurship Membership. Has experience in Administration, focusing on people
management, resilient behaviour, business failure, entrepreneurial behaviour and
internationalization. The author can be contacted at [email protected]
Julio Cezar Mairesse Siluk graduated in Business Administration (1987) with a Master's
in Production Engineering, both from the Federal University of Santa Maria (2001) and
a PhD in Production Engineering from the Federal University of Santa Catarina (2007).
He currently works as a professor at the Federal University of Santa Maria. Has
experience in Production Engineering and Administration, acting mainly on the
following topics: Strategic Management, Innovation and Competitiveness,
Performance Evaluation, Strategic Planning, Performance Indicators, Investment
Analysis and Balanced Scorecard. The author can be contacted at [email protected]
Vinícius Jaques Gerhardt graduated in Production Engineering (2018) and a Master's
in Production Engineering from the Federal University of Santa Maria (2021). He is
currently studying for a Doctorate Degree in Production Engineering at the Federal
University of Santa Maria and is a researcher at the NIC - Nucleus for Innovation and
Competitiveness. He mainly works with the following themes: Organizational
Intelligence, Innovation and Competitiveness, Performance Evaluation and
Performance Indicators. The author can be contacted at
[email protected]
Fernando de Souza Savian is a Ph.D. student in Production Engineering at the
Graduate Program in Production Engineering at the Federal University of Santa Maria.
Graduated in Electrical Engineering from Universidade Federal de Santa Maria - UFSM.
Master's degree in Production Engineering at the Graduate Program in Production
Engineering at the UFSM, Innovation and Competitiveness Center, with CAPES
scholarship. Assistant Professor at the School of Administration of the Federal University
of Rio Grande do Sul in 2019 in disciplines related to production, sustainability and
projects. The author can be contacted at [email protected]
Taís Bisognin Garlet is a Ph.D. candidate in the Post-Graduate Program in Production
Engineering at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul - UFRGS. She holds a degree
in Chemical Engineering from the Federal University of Santa Maria – UFSM and a
Master's in Production Engineering from the Post-Graduate Program in Production
Engineering by UFSM at the Center for Innovation and Competitiveness. She has
experience in Organizational Management, Strategic Planning, Performance
Measurement, Research, Development, and Innovation. The author can be
contacted at [email protected]

71