Peculiarity of hybrid entrepreneurs - Revisiting Lazear's theory of entrepreneurship

Kurczewska, Agnieszka; Mackiewicz, Michał; Doryń, Wirginia; Wawrzyniak, Dorota Article Peculiarity of hybrid entrepreneurs - Revisiting Lazear's theory of entrepreneurship Journal of Business Economics and Management (JBEM) Provided in Cooperation with: Vilnius Gediminas Technical University (VILNIUS TECH) Suggested Citation: Kurczewska, Agnieszka; Mackiewicz, Michał; Doryń, Wirginia; Wawrzyniak, Dorota (2020) : Peculiarity of hybrid entrepreneurs - Revisiting Lazear's theory of entrepreneurship, Journal of Business Economics and Management (JBEM), ISSN 2029-4433, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Vilnius, Vol. 21, Iss. 1, pp. 277-300, https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2020.11959 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/317389 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by VGTU Press *Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected] This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Journal of Business Economics and Management ISSN 1611-1699 / eISSN 2029-4433 2020 Volume 21 Issue 1: 277–300 https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2020.11959 PECULIARITY OF HYBRID ENTREPRENEURS – REVISITING LAZEAR’S THEORY OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP Agnieszka KURCZEWSKA *, Michał MACKIEWICZ , Wirginia DORYŃ , Dorota WAWRZYNIAK Faculty of Economics and Sociology, University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland Received 19 November 2018; accepted 11 December 2019 Abstract. The aim of this study is to explore and elaborate the concept of hybrid entrepreneurship, i.e., a simultaneous mix of self-employment (entrepreneurship) and salary employment. Lazear’s theory of entrepreneurship is assessed in terms whether it can explain the phenomenon of being a hybrid entrepreneur. The hypothesis is that the probability of linking a salary job with one’s own business increases with the variety and level of education gained, the broadness of professional and management experience but also the level of entrepreneurial self-efficacy. The hypotheses are tested with multivariate logistic regression, using survey data gathered from 1600 entrepreneurs. In light of the results, Lazear’s theory cannot be unambiguously extended to the case of hybrid entrepreneurs. Although the probability of being a hybrid entrepreneur increases with broader professional and managerial experience, at the same time it diminishes as the level and diversity of education increase. The results suggest that hybrid entrepreneurs are an importantly discrete population and therefore need to be treated separately. The theoretical and practical implications of the results are discussed. Keywords: hybrid entrepreneurship, part-time entrepreneurship, Lazear’s theory of entrepreneurship, jack-of-all-trades, entrepreneurial skills, career choice. JEL Classification: L26, J24. Introduction The ever-changing labour market, with its tendency to activate non-standard working arrangements and to create temporary jobs (Fayard, 2019), has brought a new employment phenomenon into the research spotlight, termed hybrid entrepreneurship (Folta etal., 2010), or, less often, part-time business (Smallbone & Welter, 2001; Petrova, 2012) or second job entrepreneurship (Gruenert, 1999). This new phenomenon is a simultaneous mix of selfemployment and salary employment as individuals start their ventures while retaining a 278 A. Kurczewska et al. Peculiarity of hybrid entrepreneurs – revisiting lazear’s theory of... salary job. Therefore, it enables an individual to realize his or her entrepreneurial potential while being financially and socially secured by an employer (and with limited personal risks). The novelty of hybrid entrepreneurship as a research concept has resulted in a wave of publications which are mainly trying to explore the motives or intentions of this career path (Petrova, 2011, 2012; Folta etal., 2010; Thorgren etal., 2014, 2016; Dzomonda & Masocha, 2018), the practical mechanisms behind it (Burmeister-Lamp etal., 2012), the passion around it (Nordström etal., 2016), the transition into hybrid entrepreneruship (Ferreira etal., 2018) or the risk attitudes of hybrid entrepreneurs (Raffiee & Feng, 2014). They all seem to agree on the distinctiveness of hybrid entrepreneurs, but they also highlight the heterogeneity of this group and the necessity to continue research endeavours to understand better their specifics. In this sense, the concept of hybrid entrepreneurship has been given a meaning in entrepreneurship research, but it has not been discussed deep enough (Folta etal., 2010), particularly in the area of hybrid entrepreneurs’ knowledge and skills sets, which are constantly being developed through their doubled career experiences. To build the theoretical framework for such a discussion, Lazear’s theory of entrepreneurship was chosen (Lazear, 2002, 2005). This theory, in contrast to other neoclassical economic theories, acknowledges entrepreneurs in economy (Saiz-Alvarez, 2019). It is recognized as being one of the two most influential explanations of individual selection into entrepreneurship (Hsieh etal., 2017), representing alternative view to the risk aversion theory (Kihlstrom & Laffont, 1979). The theory refers to human capital, contemporary considered as a key success factor in entrepreneurship (Velasco, 2012; Gomezelj & Antončič, 2014). It considers that individuals with a balanced but diversified combination of skills and knowledge, collected from diverse sources and domains, are more likely to become entrepreneurs. In contrast, wage employees more often choose the career of specialists in fields demanded by the labor market. Surprisingly, in Lazear’s study, but also in his followers’ wide body of research, the group of hybrid entrepreneurs has been largely ignored, although the phenomenon of hybrid entrepreneurship directly relates to labour choices. In consequence, there is no knowledge on how the broad experience of this unique group of entrepreneurs characterises their career choices. The aim of the paper is to fill this research gap and therefore explore and elaborate the concept of hybrid entrepreneurship through the verification of Lazear’s theory of entrepreneurship. To find the essence of hybrid entrepreneurship, hybrid entrepreneurs are juxtaposed with “pure” entrepreneurs (with full immersion into self-employment). The differences between these two groups are extracted to draw a more accurate portrayal of hybrid entrepreneurs regarding their accumulated skills, knowledge and experience. Contrasting one sample against another seems to be the optimal solution when phenomena under investigation is weakly recognized and underexplored, as in the case of hybrid entrepreneurship. To gain more knowledge and understanding on hybrid entrepreneurship, the hypothesis is stated that the probability of being a hybrid entrepreneur increases with the variety of education gained, the broadness of professional, management and life experience but also with the level of entrepreneurial self-efficacy, since, following Tegtmeier et al. (2016), the perception of skills may be as important as the skills per se, therefore may have a significant impact on entrepreneurship entry mode. Being able to indicate systematic differences between “pure” Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2020, 21(1): 277–300 279 and hybrid entrepreneurs results in contribution and implications both for theory and practice of entrepreneurship. In its theoretical dimension, this paper contributes to the existing literature in two ways. Firstly, by exploring the influence of skills, knowledge, and experience on the likelihood of being a hybrid entrepreneur, the paper brings a deepened understanding of the phenomenon of hybrid entrepreneurs and their career choices. Secondly, the aim is to contribute to the ongoing discussion on Lazear’s theory of entrepreneurship (2002, 2005). The theory has not been confronted with the group of hybrid entrepreneurs. However, the group is specific enough (because of hybrid entrepreneurs’ accumulated experiences due to simultaneous careers as entrepreneurs and salary employees) to create an interesting area for scientific inquiry revisiting this well-established entrepreneurship theory. Continuing investigation on hybrid entrepreneurship is also justified if it is considered how often this phenomenon appears in practice (Thorgren etal., 2014) and that hybrid entrepreneurs have a much lower chance of a hazardous exit (Raffiee & Feng, 2014). Following the study of Burke etal. (2008), individuals who enjoy both self-employment and salary work significantly outnumber “pure” entrepreneurs. At the same time, in a scientific discourse and empirical studies this group of entrepreneurs is marginalised. In practice, hybrid entrepreneurship might be also seen as a solution to break the dichotomy of entrepreneurship and salary employment. Its potential could be particularly acknowledged when data on latent entrepreneurs, i.e., individuals who declare preferences for self-employment over employment, are analyzed. The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, 2018) announced that in European economies in 2017, total early-stage entrepreneurial activity was 10.84% (the percentage of the 18–64 population who are either nascent entrepreneurs or owner-managers of a new business) and the indicator of entrepreneurial intentions reached 19.38% (the percentage of the 18–64 population who are latent entrepreneurs and intend to start a business within three years). At least some of the latent entrepreneurs may first consider becoming hybrid entrepreneurs and only then scale up their businesses and grow. Therefore, from the perspective of policy focused on promoting entrepreneurship, knowing more on hybrid entrepreneurs may help to better support individuals in their incremental transition to become “pure” entrepreneurs, in particular, if more insights into the types and scope of their professional experiences and skills are gained. However, so far, public policy tends to disregard hybrid entrepreneurs (Folta etal., 2010; Schulz etal., 2016) and the discourse on this group of entrepreneurs is very silent, although in light of the research they seem be to be more responsive to any policy regulation than their “pure” counterparts (Schulz etal., 2016). The paper is structured as follows: the first section contains a review of the theoretical and empirical findings on hybrid entrepreneurship and addresses the gap in this research area. In the next chapter, Lazear’s theory of entrepreneurship and its implications for the study in terms of hypotheses are presented. The subsequent section describes the methodology and data. After this, the results and findings on hybrid entrepreneurship are discussed in the context of Lazear’s theory. The paper ends with concluding thoughts and implications. 280 A. Kurczewska et al. Peculiarity of hybrid entrepreneurs – revisiting lazear’s theory of... 1. Hybrid entrepreneurship Traditionally, entrepreneurship is regarded as a quite dichotomous phenomenon, where individuals are categorized as either entrepreneurs or non-entrepreneurs (Gartner, 1988). With the development of the field, researchers focused more on discovering the nuances of the entrepreneurial process and stopped conducting comparative studies between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs, recognizing the distinction and large heterogeneity of both groups (Bögenhold, 2018). However, still one important phenomenon, which is part of both sets, was largely missed – hybrid entrepreneurship. Hybrid entrepreneurs are usually defined as “individuals who engage in self-employment activity while simultaneously holding a primary job in wage work” (Folta etal., 2010, p.254). The group of hybrid entrepreneurs rejects traditional entrepreneurial choice theories (Evans & Jovanovic, 1989; Dunn & Holtz-Eakin, 2000) as they do not have to choose between paid jobs and self-employment anymore (Petrova, 2012). They can split their time between the two options. Nevertheless, so far, hybrid entrepreneurs have not been investigated enough and, as a result, the knowledge about their specifics, particularly in comparison with full-time entrepreneurs, is scarce. One of the explanations for this situation could be the low availability of empirical data, as this employment category does not appear in official labour statistics in most world economies. Also, in many systematic studies, hybrid entrepreneurs were categorized into mutually exclusive sets as self-employed or wage workers (Folta etal., 2010). Entrepreneurial entry is a result of an individual’s general choice to become an entrepreneur (Knatko etal., 2016). A decision to become hybrid entrepreneur has many advantages. According to the research, entering “pure” entrepreneurship via hybrid entrepreneurship increases the chances of business survival (Raffiee & Feng, 2014) and the cost of business exit has less sunk cost (O’Brien & Folta, 2009). Interestingly, the study of Schulz etal. (2017) shows that being entrepreneur as a second job increases the probability of higher earnings in this second job, if compared to being employed in both occupations. What is also highlighted in literature is the benefit of learning process about the business that hybrid entrepreneurs may benefit from with less risk, as well as their more time to generate entrepreneurial experiences and accumulate business knowledge. In consequence, individuals who decide on full immersion into self-employment in a staged process via hybrid entrepreneurship survive longer than those who enter self-employment directly from a salary job (Raffiee & Feng, 2014) without this transitory stage. However, despite these numerous benefits of hybrid entrepreneurship, the broader socio-demographic portrayal of this group of entrepreneurs remains blurry. The group of hybrid entrepreneurs tends to be divided into subgroups. The most common division relates to the criterion of whether hybrid entrepreneurship is just an entry phase and a mid-point on the way to becoming a full-time entrepreneur (regarding it as a transition period, mainly in the process of nascent entrepreneurship) or this transition is not planned (Viljamaa & Varamäki, 2015; Thorgren etal., 2016, Viljamaa etal., 2017). In this vein, hybrid entrepreneurship is seen as a two-stage process, where, during the first step, entrepreneurs decide whether to engage in a business start-up, and in the second step, they decide whether to leave salaried employment and become full-time entrepreneurs (Thorgren etal., 2016). Swinging between a paid job and one’s own business requires a unique combination of skills Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2020, 21(1): 277–300 281 and time management. However, if the entrepreneur decides not to leave a salary job, it also calls into question the possibility of the growth of the company that he or she owns (Brown & Farshid, 2017). Two of the most frequent research questions relating to hybrid entrepreneurs are why they decide to have their own business parallel to salary work (Thorgren etal., 2014) and what makes them (hybrid) entrepreneurs (Blanchflower & Oswald, 1998). In general, individuals choose to become hybrid entrepreneurs for monetary and non-monetary reasons. Among the former some individuals decide on hybrid entrepreneurship due to financial constraints, because of a need to maximise income or in order to diversify financial risk. Among the later, psychological reasons dominate, like social recognition or self-realization (Folta etal., 2010; Block & Landgraf, 2016), but the choices could be also explained by the work place or sector specifics. Petrova (2012) tested the hypothesis that the reason for the existence of part-time entrepreneurship is that people are credit constrained (entrepreneurs work as salary employees to finance their businesses). However, according to her findings, hybrid entrepreneurs are not affected by financial constraints. In another study, Petrova (2011) argues that individuals become part-time entrepreneurs to self-test their entrepreneurial ability ahead of time (while having a salary job). Folta etal. (2010) share a similar understanding, explaining that more risk-averse entrepreneurs rationally choose hybrid entrepreneurship to decrease their sunk commitment while they examine their entrepreneurial capabilities. Other studies try to investigate the specifics of hybrid entrepreneurs. In the light of Jenkins, Wiklund and Brundin’s (2014) study, hybrid entrepreneurs are less likely to appraise the failure as involving self-esteem loss (although it was not the case for financial strain). Raffiee and Feng (2014) see hybrid entrepreneurship as a way to reduce risk and uncertainty associated with business set-up and survival on the market. All these studies have contributed to better understanding of hybrid entrepreneurship but, above all, made it clear that this group of entrepreneurs is specific enough to require more focus due to its meaning for the economy and individuals’ development. 2. Lazear’s theory of entrepreneurship and hybrid entrepreneurs In the contemporary competitive environment, the emphasis is given the knowledge and skills of the workforce (Pérez-Bustamante Ilander etal., 2016). Theoretical framework of the paper is built around Lazear’s theory of entrepreneurship, which explains and predicts who becomes an entrepreneur. This theory, which considers maximizing one’s lifetime income as a key motive for professional choices, assumes that entrepreneurs need to be competent in many and balanced skills and have at least basic knowledge in numerous areas (Lazear, 2005). Individuals with more diverse skill sets, but also those who have more varied careers (having more professional experiences or performing more roles at work) are more likely to become entrepreneurs. As Lazear (2005, p.676) explains: Although not necessarily superb at anything, entrepreneurs have to be sufficiently skilled in a variety of areas to put together the many ingredients required to create a successful business. As a result, entrepreneurs tend to be more balanced individuals. 282 A. Kurczewska et al. Peculiarity of hybrid entrepreneurs – revisiting lazear’s theory of... Lazear’s theory centers around the so-called “jacks-of-all-trades”. Its main hypothesis states that entrepreneurs need sufficient skills and knowledge in a variety of areas to succeed, while paid employees benefit from being specialists/experts in a certain area that is demanded by the labour market. Lazear tested the theory on Stanford alumni. The data on about 5000 alumni (40 per cent response rate) included information on their postgraduate work experience and incomes, as well as on courses taken when they were students at the Stanford Graduate School of Business. In light of the results that Lazear obtained, Stanford alumni entrepreneurs had studied a more diversified curriculum than those who were employees, and they had a greater variety of roles in their professional careers before becoming an entrepreneur. Therefore, results confirmed the hypothesis that individuals who have more varied careers (performed more roles and gained more experiences) and more diverse skills are more likely to become entrepreneurs. Lazear (2005) provides two explanations for his findings. The first explanation states that the dependency between the number of roles and entrepreneurship is a consequence of differences in skills across populations (individuals with more general skills are able to perform more roles). The second explanation says that this dependency is a result of mindful investment, as individuals planning to become entrepreneurs try numerous roles in order to gain the knowledge and skills necessary to start their business. Although Stanford MBA Alumni may not be representative sample for all other individuals all over the world (Wagner, 2003), Lazear’s theory was confirmed in many further studies, for example: Åstebro and Thompson (2011), Backes-Gellner and Moog (2013), Hartog etal. (2010), Stuetzer etal. (2013), Wagner (2003, 2006). To some extent it was confirmed by Lechmann and Schnabel (2014), who agreed with Lazear’s view on a multi-skilled entrepreneur but did not agree with Lazear’s view on different human capital investment patterns of entrepreneurs and salary employees, or by Spanjer and Witteloostuijn (2017) who find that entrepreneurial performance depends on industry experience but not necessarily on entrepreneurial experience. However, there are also opposing voices raised. For example, Silva (2007) did not find any support for Lazear’s “jack-of-all-trades” hypothesis. Regardless of the results, the studies referred to above were performed on very diverse groups, like nascent entrepreneurs (Wagner, 2006), inventor-entrepreneurs (Åstebro & Thompson, 2011), women (Tegtmeier etal., 2016), graduates (Lazear, 2002, 2005), and university students (BackesGellner & Moog, 2013). However, so far, despite the importance of hybrid entrepreneurs for entrepreneurship practice, there are no studies challenging Lazear’ theory on a group of hybrid entrepreneurs. What is not often included in studies relating to Lazear’s theory is a self-efficacy construct. This term is well developed in psychology and was later on successfully transmitted to entrepreneurship research and named entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ESE). Self-efficacy, being self-regulatory construct (Bryant, 2007), stems from social cognitive theory where psychosocial functioning is explained as a triadic reciprocal causation of behaviour, personal factors (e.g., cognitions), and environmental events (Wood & Bandura, 1989). It is typically defined as “the belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations” (Bandura, 1995, p.2). Bandura (1997) describes self-efficacy as concerned with people’s beliefs in their capabilities to producegiven attainments. In the context of entrepreneurship, the concept of self-efficacy represents an individual’s perception Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2020, 21(1): 277–300 283 that he or she is able to successfully perform the tasks and roles of an entrepreneur (Chen etal., 1998); it is a personal belief and judgments of one’s own skills and abilities to achieve entrepreneurial goals (Baron etal., 2016). In entrepreneurship field, self-efficacy has been related to the discussion on entrepreneurial intentions (Barbosa etal., 2007; Boyd & Vozikis, 1994; Douglas & Fitzsimmons, 2013; Zhao etal., 2005), entrepreneurial opportunities (Boudreaux etal., 2019; Tumasjan & Braun, 2012), risk preference (Barbosa etal., 2007), or entrepreneurial intuition (Blume & Covin, 2011; Kickul etal., 2009). Therefore, it has been proved to have significant meaning for entrepreneurship entry mode. In this paper, following the logic of Tegtmeier etal. (2016), it is argued that it is not only sound skills but also the perceptions of these skills that are important in entrepreneurial career choices. Hence, next to rich professional and management experience, and diverse education, an entrepreneurial self-efficacy as a factor potentially influencing the probability of someone becoming an entrepreneur was added to Lazear’s model. To the set of factors influencing entrepreneurial career choice, life experience was also added, as social life (represented by being active in number of life activity areas, such as sports, hobbies, social activities, charities, volunteering, political activity, traveling as well as participation in cultural and religious life) may, next to professional experience, also impact individual selection into entrepreneurship. In this paper the question of the influence of skills, knowledge, and experience on the likelihood of being a hybrid entrepreneur instead of a full-time entrepreneur is raised. The hypothesis is that hybrid entrepreneurs, whose experiences accumulate due to their simultaneous careers as entrepreneurs and salary employees, are even stricter form of “jacks-of-all-trades”. Individuals usually acquire experience in paid employment before starting their own business and becoming hybrid entrepreneurs (Xi etal., 2017). They use this time to gain business-related skills, to accumulate funds and to develop professional networks (Solesvik, 2017). Through part-time entrepreneurship, hybrid entrepreneurs gain business knowledge before committing to “pure”, full-time entrepreneurship (Raffiee & Feng, 2014; Thorgren etal., 2016; Wennberg etal., 2006). Therefore, it is assumed that, in general, hybrid entrepreneurs have broad professional experience and rich education (due to higher chances of receiving professional training related to their paid jobs). What may be also expected is that hybrid entrepreneurs have higher and more balanced skills than “pure” entrepreneurs, as they need to switch between different roles and face diverse challenges and responsibilities (Thorgren etal., 2014). Regarding entrepreneurial self-efficacy, two patterns are possible ex-ante. Hybrid entrepreneurs may show higher self-efficacy as they see themselves as being competent and strong enough to continue both running their business and salary work. This explanation finds its confirmation for example in Tegtmeier etal. (2016) study on women entrepreneurs. On the other hand, they may also present lower esteem for their own entrepreneurial skills; hence, they hedge against possible bankruptcy by keeping their (relatively) safe salary job positions. In light of Raffiee and Feng (2014) study, individuals who have low self-evaluation are more likely to become hybrid entrepreneurs. As the previous empirical results are not conclusive, the hypothesis is that the probability of being a hybrid entrepreneur increases with higher level of entrepreneurial self-efficacy. 284 A. Kurczewska et al. Peculiarity of hybrid entrepreneurs – revisiting lazear’s theory of... Taking all these into account, it is assumed that hybrid entrepreneurs fall into Lazear’s theory. Therefore, the study develops Lazear’s theory on the group of hybrid entrepreneurs by testing the following hypotheses: H1: The probability of being a hybrid entrepreneur increases with higher and more diverse education. H2: The probability of being a hybrid entrepreneur increases with broader professional experience. H3: The probability of being a hybrid entrepreneur increases with broader management experience. H4: The probability of being a hybrid entrepreneur increases with broader life experience. H5: The probability of being a hybrid entrepreneur increases with higher level of entrepreneurial self-efficacy. 3. Methodology The sample. The study tests hypotheses related to Lazear’s theory on a sample of 1600 individuals in Poland. The first sub-group consists of 800 individuals who are self-employed for at least 36 months and combine it with salary work, i.e., they are hybrid entrepreneurs. The second sub-sample is a group of 800 successful “pure” entrepreneurs who managed to sustain their businesses for at least 36 months and who are not employed as a paid employee. Individuals who were performing professional activities under direct supervision for one employer, irrespective of the legal form of the contract, were not included into the sample. Data collection procedures. The data for the study were collected by an established Polish market and opinion research institute. In the screening calls, those contacted were asked if they were currently a self-employed individual or an individual matching self-employment with salary work. The respondents who fell into either of these categories were then interviewed by telephone (with the CATI method). The questionnaire for hybrid and “pure” entrepreneurs was designed by a research team (see the Appendix 1 for some details about the questionnaire). Apart from basic demographic data, all the respondents were asked about their educational and professional track record, including formal education (secondary vocational education, studies and training sessions), the number of jobs and positions within their professional career, and international experiences and their entrepreneurship record. Additionally, the hybrid entrepreneurs were asked whether they started the entrepreneurship or the salary job first and which of these two career paths brings more personal satisfaction, results in higher income and takes more time. The average interview lasted about 25 minutes. The calls were held from the beginning of December 2017 till the end of January 2018. To avoid errors in the collection of data, pre-testing for a questionnaire was organised and some of the data points were checked randomly. An effort has also been taken to precisely define the groups by imposing filtering criteria and ensuring a solid sample design. The dependent variable. In the study, the occupational status of being self-employed was used as a proxy for entrepreneurship, the theoretical concept applied by Lazear (2005) and his followers, who treat self-employment as entrepreneurship (Hsieh etal., 2017). The dependent Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2020, 21(1): 277–300 291 Variables (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Experience in managerial position 1.4197*** 1.4465*** 1.3858*** 1.4178*** (dummy, 1 = Yes) (0.135) (0.134) (0.134) (0.133) Self-efficacy (tasks) –0.0664*** –0.0672*** –0.0673*** –0.0681*** (0.011) (0.011) (0.011) (0.012) Number of different educational levels –0.4754*** –0.5145*** –0.5178*** –0.5593*** (0.159) (0.163) (0.157) (0.160) Professional experience (industries) 0.5262*** (0.051) Constant 6.8062*** 6.5912*** 6.1442*** 5.8910*** 7.5537*** 7.3247*** 6.9140*** 6.6708*** 6.8928*** (1.003) (1.029) (1.008) (1.029) (0.986) (1.010) (0.991) (1.011) (0.997) Pseudo R20.233 0.268 0.218 0.254 0.224 0.260 0.209 0.246 0.234 Prob>chi2<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Note: standard errors in parentheses. Asterisks indicate significance at levels: *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1. End of Table 3 292 A. Kurczewska et al. Peculiarity of hybrid entrepreneurs – revisiting lazear’s theory of... statistically significant impact. Therefore, playing different roles in life (such as sports, hobbies, social activities, charities, volunteering, political activity, traveling and participation in cultural/ religious life) does not influence the probability of being a hybrid entrepreneur as professional and management experience, as stated in hypothesis4. The probability of being a hybrid entrepreneur diminishes with higher entrepreneurial self-efficacy (p < 0.01). This could be interpreted as hybrid entrepreneurs are not evaluating their entrepreneurial skills highly; hence they try to avoid possible failures by holding their salary job positions. It means that they are not perceiving themselves as capable of following only entrepreneurial career path and rather try to hedge against difficulties. When it comes to age, the results revealed a U-shaped relationship (Figure1). The probability of being a hybrid entrepreneur initially declines for younger individuals and then rises after a minimum at around the age of 54. When it comes to control variables, the probability of being a hybrid entrepreneur is higher for women and decreases with the number of children (p < 0.01). This could be explained by the fact that women need and use hybrid entrepreneurship also as a vehicle to decrease uncertainty before fully committing to their businesses (Belasen, 2017). They are in general less prone to risk and hybrid entrepreneurship enables them to test their extra business activity before a full immersion into entrepreneurship. However, having children limits the time that they could devote to develop their businesses “after hours”. Figure 1. The probability of being a hybrid entrepreneur as age changes To sum up, in light of the results, Lazear’s theory cannot be extended and applied to the case of hybrid entrepreneurs. Hybrid entrepreneurs constitute a very specific group requiring separate theories or frameworks that explain their career choices. Nevertheless, the study confirms the importance of diverse professional and management experiences in being an entrepreneur. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2020, 21(1): 277–300 293 Conclusions The idea of the study was to elucidate the concept of hybrid entrepreneurship by exploring the influence of skills, knowledge, and experience on the likelihood of being a hybrid entrepreneur rather than a full-time entrepreneur. The discussion was grounded in Lazear’s theory of entrepreneurship. Hybrid entrepreneurs were assumed to fall into the “jacks-ofall-trades” category and therefore five hypotheses mostly related to particular elements of Lazear’s theory were tested. However, according to the findings, and unlike “pure” entrepreneurs, hybrid entrepreneurs are not typical examples of “jacks-of-all-trades”. Although the probability of being a hybrid entrepreneur increases with broader professional and management experience, at the same time it diminishes as the level and diversity of education increases. Therefore, Lazear’s “jack-of-all-trades” hypothesis does not hold true for the group of hybrid entrepreneurs. This result is also supported when Lazear’s theory is extended by adding the self-efficacy concept into entrepreneurial choice model. They observed a higher probability of becoming self-employed when entrepreneurial self-efficacy is higher and more balanced. In the study the probability of being a hybrid entrepreneur diminishes with higher entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Verifying proposed hypotheses leads to a more nuanced understanding of hybrid entrepreneurship. As a theoretical contribution the study offers new insights regarding who hybrid entrepreneurs are and how unique they are. Hybrid entrepreneurs rely on previous diverse professional and managerial experience. However, they are characterized by less formal education, both in terms of the overall level, as well as a less diverse educational path. These results suggest that hybrid entrepreneurship tends to be more of a “jack-of-all-trades” in terms of practical experience, rather than formal education. Hence, Lazear’s theory cannot be uniformly applied to this group in its pure form, but instead should be modified. The study suggests that individual characteristics may play an important role in entrepreneurial processes and entrepreneurship entry mode. As far as practical implications are concerned, they are divided into ones related to education, public policy and (hybrid) entrepreneurs. First of all, the findings may also be used to advise pedagogy. Part-time entrepreneurs are more likely than other individuals to become full-time entrepreneurs. Therefore, assuming there is a demand to promote “full” entrepreneurship, the practical implications from the study regard the need to develop more diversified forms and contents of education, at the same time focusing on gaining meaningful experiences. The implications may also refer to public policy. In most countries, public policy supports full-time entrepreneurship, but does not relate to hybrid entrepreneurship when designing entrepreneurship related regulations. Assuming that at least some entrepreneurs are in the transition from being hybrid entrepreneurs to “pure” entrepreneurs, the findings indicate that this transition requires additional attention and aid as these two groups are importantly different. Therefore, creating a separate set of supporting tools for hybrid entrepreneurs is recommended as the dichotomy between entrepreneurship and salary employment is often broken. Also, venture capital funds and other lending institutions might be interested in arranging special funding schemes available for hybrid entrepreneurs. Besides, this study brings some implications for hybrid entrepreneurs who think about full immer- 294 A. Kurczewska et al. Peculiarity of hybrid entrepreneurs – revisiting lazear’s theory of... sion into self-employment. To increase the probability of being a “pure” entrepreneur, hybrid entrepreneurs may “work” in the area of greater diversity and a higher level of education as well as higher entrepreneurial self-efficacy. The study has several notable limitations. The first limitation concerns the sample used. The hypotheses were tested on “pure” and hybrid entrepreneurs from a single-country setting – Poland. The study refers to one particular context and therefore generalizing the findings to other populations has to be very careful and needs further validation. There might be some specific features of the Polish business environment that might have influenced the respondents. Therefore, future studies may broaden the approach to other countries or settings. The second limitation refers to the sample composition. A broader picture of entrepreneurship could be achieved if a third group of salary employees was added to juxtapose hybrid entrepreneurs with more than just “pure” entrepreneurs. It would be interesting to know how hybrid entrepreneurs who still keep their salary job are different from employed workers. Potentially, there are also some shortages in questionnaire which could relate to other interesting and specific issues for hybrid entrepreneurs, like for example whether being employee is an obstacle to succeed in entrepreneurship or what are the differences in responsibility distribution in case of hybrid and “pure” entrepreneurs. Adding few questions more to the questionnaire distributed among hybrid entrepreneurs’ respondents could deepen an understanding of that group. Despite these limitations, the results and discussion presented in this paper may be starting points for future conceptual and empirical studies on hybrid entrepreneurship by developing further the meaning of diverse entrepreneurial knowledge and experience in entrepreneurial activities, or by extending Lazear’s theory in a way that considers the specifics of hybrid entrepreneurship. The results of the study indicated that there are still many underinvestigated topics related to hybrid entrepreneurship which are worth further consideration. Hopefully, this paper opens a window of opportunity for more research on this interesting group of entrepreneurs. Funding This work was supported by the National Science Centre in Poland under Grant “New approach to Lazear’s entrepreneurship theory in context of entrepreneurial success and failure” (OPUS, DEC-2016/23/B/HS4/01759). Author contributions Agnieszka Kurczewska and Michał Mackiewicz conceived the study and were responsible for the design and development of the data analysis. Wirginia Doryń and Dorota Wawrzyniak were responsible for data analysis. All authors were responsible for data interpretation. Disclosure statement Authors do not they have any competing financial, professional, or personal interests from other parties. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2020, 21(1): 277–300 295 References Åstebro, T., & Thompson, P. (2011). Entrepreneurs, jacks of all trades or hobos? Research Policy, 40(5), 637–649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.01.010 Backes-Gellner, U., & Moog, P. (2013). The disposition to become an entrepreneur and the jacks-of-alltrades in social and human capital. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 47, 55–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2013.08.008 Bandura, A. (1995). Self efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511527692 Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Macmillan. Barbosa, S. D., Gerhardt, M. W., & Kickul, J. R. (2007). The role of cognitive style and risk preference on entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 13(4), 86–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/10717919070130041001 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 Belasen, A. T. (2017). Women in management: A framework for sustainable work–life integration (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315474571 Blanchflower, D. G., & Oswald, A. J. (1998). What makes an entrepreneur? Journal of Labor Economics, 16(1), 26–60. https://doi.org/10.1086/209881 Block, J. H., & Landgraf, A. (2016). Transition from part-time entrepreneurship to full-time entrepreneurship: The role of financial and non-financial motives. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(1), 259–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-014-0331-6 Blume, B. D., & Covin, J. G. (2011). Attributions to intuition in the venture founding process: Do entrepreneurs actually use intuition or just say that they do? Journal of Business Venturing, 26(1), 137–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.04.002 Bögenhold, D. (2019). From hybrid entrepreneurs to entrepreneurial billionaires: Observations on the socioeconomic heterogeneity of self-employment. American Behavioral Scientist, 63(2), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218794231 Boudreaux, C. J., Nikolaev, B. N., & Klein, P. (2019). Socio-cognitive traits and entrepreneurship: The moderating role of economic institutions. Journal of Business Venturing, 34(1), 178–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.08.003 Boyd, N. G., & Vozikis, G. S. (1994). The influence of self-efficacy on the development of entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(4), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879401800404 Brown, T., & Farshid, M. (2017). To grow or not to grow, that is the question. Entreprendre & Innover, 34(3), 29–37. https://doi.org/10.3917/entin.034.0029 Bryant, P. (2007). Self-regulation and decision heuristics in entrepreneurial opportunity evaluation and exploitation. Management Decision, 45(4), 732–748. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740710746006 Burke, A. E., FitzRoy, F. R., & Nolan, M. A. (2008). What makes a die-hard entrepreneur? Beyond the ‘employee or entrepreneur’ dichotomy. Small Business Economics, 31(2), 93–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-007-9086-6 Burmeister-Lamp, K., Lévesque, M., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2011.12.001 Chen, C. C., Greene, P. G., & Crick, A. (1998): Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business Venturing, 13(4), 295–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(97)00029-3 296 A. Kurczewska et al. Peculiarity of hybrid entrepreneurs – revisiting lazear’s theory of... Douglas, E. J., & Fitzsimmons, J. R. (2013). Intrapreneurial intentions versus entrepreneurial intentions: Distinct constructs with different antecedents. Small Business Economics, 41(1), 115–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-012-9419-y Dunn, T., & Holtz-Eakin, D. (2000). Financial capital, human capital, and the transition to self-employment: Evidence from intergenerational links. Journal of Labor Economics, 18(2), 282–305. https://doi.org/10.1086/209959 Dzomonda, O., & Masocha, R. (2018). Demystifying the nexus between social capital and entrepreneurial success in South Africa. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 25(1), 1–10. Evans, D. S., & Jovanovic, B. (1989). An estimated model of entrepreneurial choice under liquidity constraints. Journal of Political Economy, 97(4), 808–827. https://doi.org/10.1086/261629 Fayard, A.-L. (2019), Notes on the meaning of work: Labor, work, and action in the 21st century. Journal of Management Inquiry, pp.1–14 (in press). https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492619841705 Ferreira, C., Robertson, J., Blair, A., McMullan, K., & Morrison, S. (2018). Look before you leap: An analysis of factors driving the transition from hybrid to full-time entrepreneurship. Summary Brief. In J. G. Fowler & J. Weiser (Eds.), Ethical decisions in lifestyle choices (pp.286–287). Society for Marketing Advances Proceedings, November 2017. Louisville, Kentucky. Folta, T. B., Delmar, F., & Wennberg, K. (2010). Hybrid entrepreneurship. Management Science, 56(2), 253–269. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1090.1094 Gartner, W. B. (1988). “Who is an entrepreneur?” is the wrong question. American Journal of Small Business, 12(4), 11–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225878801200401 Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. (2018). Global report 2017/18. https://www.gemconsortium.org/report/gem-2017-2018-global-report Gomezelj, D., & Antončič, B. (2014). Employees’ knowledge determinants in SMEs: The case of Slovenia. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 16(2), 422–444. https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2012.734326 Gruenert, J. C. (1999). Second job entrepreneurs. Occupational Outlook Quarterly, 43(3), 18–26. Hartog, J., Van Praag, M., & Van Der Sluis, J. (2010). If you are so smart, why aren’t you an entrepreneur? Returns to cognitive and social ability: Entrepreneurs versus employees. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 19(4), 947–989. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9134.2010.00274.x Hsieh, C., Parker, S. C., & van Praag, C. M. (2017). Risk, balanced skills and entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 48(2), 287–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9785-y International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO). (2007). Resolution Concerning Updating the International Standard Classification of Occupations. 34p. www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/stat/isco/docs/resol08.pdf Jenkins, A. S., Wiklund, J., & Brundin, E. (2014). Individual responses tofirm failure: Appraisals, grief, and the influence of prior failure experience. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(1), 17–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2012.10.006 Kickul, J., Gundry, L. K., Barbosa, S. D., & Whitcanack, L. (2009). Intuition versus analysis? Testing Differential Models of Cognitive style on Entrepreneurial self–efficacy and the new venture creation process. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(2), 439–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00298.x Kihlstrom, R. E., & Laffont, J. J. (1979). A general equilibrium entrepreneurial theory of firm formation based on risk aversion. Journal of Political Economy, 87(4), 719–748. https://doi.org/10.1086/260790 Knatko, D., Shirokova, G., & Bogatyreva, K. (2016). Industry choice by young entrepreneurs in different country settings: The role of human and financial capital. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 17(4), 613–627. https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2015.1113199 Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2020, 21(1): 277–300 297 Lazear, E. P. (2002). Entrepreneurship (Working Paper 9109). National Bureau of Economic Research. Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.3386/w9109 Lazear, E. P. (2005). Entrepreneurship. Journal of Labor Economics, 23(4), 649–680. https://doi.org/10.1086/491605 Lechmann, D. S. J., & Schnabel, C. (2014). Are the self-employed really jacks-of-all-trades? Testing the assumptions and implications of Lazear’s theory of entrepreneurship with German data. Small Business Economics, 42(1), 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-012-9464-6 McGee, J. E., Peterson, M., Mueller, S. L., & Sequeira, J. M. (2009). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: Refining the measure. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(4), 965–988. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00304.x Nordström, C., Sirén, C. A., Thorgren, S., & Wincent, J. (2016). Passion in hybrid entrepreneurship: The impact of entrepreneurial teams and tenure. Baltic Journal of Management, 11(2), 167–186. https://doi.org/10.1108/BJM-01-2015-0007 O’Brien, J., & Folta, T. (2009). Sunk costs, uncertainty and market exit: A real options perspective. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18(5), 807–833. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtp014 Pérez-Bustamante Ilander, G. O., Marques, C. S. E., S. Jalali, M., & Ferreira, A. F. F. (2016). The impact of continuous training in small and medium enterprises: Lessons from an industrial case analysis. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 17(2), 234–250. https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2014.938359 Petrova, K. (2012). Part-time entrepreneurship and financial constraints: Evidence from the panel study of entrepreneurial dynamics. Small Business Economics, 39(2), 473–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-010-9310-7 Petrova, K. (2011). Part-time entrepreneurship, learning and ability. Journal and Management Policy and Practice, 12(1), 64–75. Raffiee, J., & Feng, J. (2014). Should I quit my day job? A hybrid path to entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Journal, 57(4), 936–963. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0522 Saiz-Alvarez, J. (2019). New approaches and theories of entrepreneurship. M.Corrales-Estrada (Ed.), Innovation and entrepreneurship: A new mindset for emerging markets (pp.13–30). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78973-701-120191004 Schulz, M., Urbig, D., & Procher, V. (2016). Hybrid entrepreneurship and public policy: The case of firm entry deregulation. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(3), 272–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2016.01.002 Schulz, M., Urbig, D., & Procher, V. (2017). The role of hybrid entrepreneurship in explaining multiple job holders’ earnings structure. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 7, 9–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2016.12.002 Silva, O. (2007). The jack-of-all-trades entrepreneur: Innate talent or acquired skill? Economics Letters, 97(2), 118–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2007.02.027 Smallbone,D., & Welter, F. (2001). The distinctiveness of entrepreneurshipin transition economies. Small Business Economics, 16(4), 249–262. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011159216578 Solesvik, M. Z. (2017). Hybrid entrepreneurship: How and why entrepreneurs combine employment with self-employment. Technology Innovation Management Review, 7(3), 33–41. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1063 Spanjer, A., & van Witteloostuijn, A. (2017), The entrepreneur’s experiential diversity and entrepreneurial performance. Small Business Economics, 49(1), 141–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9811-0 Stuetzer, M., Obschonka, M., Davidsson, P., & Schmitt-Rodermund, E. (2013). Where do entrepreneurial skills come from? Applied Economics Letters, 20(12), 1183–1186. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2013.797554 298 A. Kurczewska et al. Peculiarity of hybrid entrepreneurs – revisiting lazear’s theory of... Tegtmeier, S., Kurczewska, A., & Halberstadt, J. (2016). Are women graduates jacquelines-of-all-trades? Challenging Lazear’s view on entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 47(1), 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9727-8 Thorgren, S., Nordström, C., & Wincent, J. (2014). Hybrid entrepreneurship: The Importance of passion. Baltic Journal of Management, 9(3), 314–329. https://doi.org/10.1108/BJM-11-2013-0175 Thorgren, S., Sirén, C., Nordström, C., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2015.12.001 Tumasjan, A., & Braun, R. (2012). In the eye of the beholder: How regulatory focus and self-efficacy interact in influencing opportunity recognition. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(6), 622–636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2011.08.001 Velasco, M. (2012). More than just good grades: candidates’ perceptions about the skills and attributes employers seek in new graduates. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 13(3), 499–517. https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2011.620150 Viljamaa, A. H., & Varamäki, E. M. (2015). Do persistent and transitory hybrid entrepreneurs differ? International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering, 9(3), 936–940. Viljamaa, A., Varamäki, E., & Joensuu-Salo, S. (2017). Best of both worlds? Persistent hybrid entrepreneurship. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 25(4), 339–360. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218495817500133 Wagner, J. (2003). Testing Lazear’s jack-of-all-trades view of entrepreneurship with German micro data. Applied Economics Letters, 10(11), 687–689. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350485032000133273 Wagner, J. (2006). Are nascent entrepreneurs “Jacks-of-all-trades”? A test of Lazear’s theory of entrepreneurship with German data. Applied Economics, 38(20), 2415–2419. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840500427783 Wennberg, K., Folta, T. B., & Delmar, F. (2006). A real options model of stepwise entry into selfemployment. In Babson College Entrepreneurship Research Conference (BCERC). Bloomington, IN. Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. The Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 361–384. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4279067 Xi, G., Block, J. H., Lasch, F., Robert, F., & Thurik, R. (2017). Mode of entry into hybrid entrepreneurship: New venture start-up versus business takeover. International Review of Entrepreneurship, 16(2), 217–240. Article 1579. Zhao, H., Seibert, S. E., & Hills, G. E. (2005). The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1265. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1265 APPENDIX 1 Extract from the Questionnaire Question 1: Gender: Male Female Question 2: Please enter the year of birth: …. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2020, 21(1): 277–300 299 Question 3: Please indicate how many children you have: ... Question 5: a. In how many companies/institutions have you worked so far? …. b. In how many companies in managerial positions? …. Question 7: In which industries do you have professional experience? (Interviewer: you can mark several answers) 1. Industry / production 2. construction 3. trade 4. agriculture 5. transportation 6. other branches of production 7. hospitality and catering 8. science and technology development 9. education and upbringing 10. culture and art 11. health protection and social welfare 12. physical culture, tourism and leisure 13. other branches of services 14. state administration and justice 15. finance and insurance 16. other - what? (max 3) Question 8: At what positions have you been working in your professional career? (Interviewer: open question, list up to 15 positions, order does not matter) Question 11: What is the level of education you have acquired? 0 – primary education or no education 1 – basic vocational education 2 – secondary vocational /secondary general education 3 – post-secondary education 4 – tertiary education Question 12: What fields did you study? You can indicate a few answers, studying does not necessarily mean graduation (max 8) … 300 A. Kurczewska et al. Peculiarity of hybrid entrepreneurs – revisiting lazear’s theory of... Question 17: How do you assess your own skills in the following areas? (scale 1–5, where 1 means very poor, and 5 – very good) 1. Financial management and accounting 1 2 3 4 5 2. Sales 1 2 3 4 5 3. Marketing and advertising 1 2 3 4 5 4. Human resource management 1 2 3 4 5 5. Customer relations 1 2 3 4 5 6. Logistics and shopping 1 2 3 4 5 7. Product design 1 2 3 4 5 8. IT systems (including internet and graphic programs) 1 2 3 4 5 Question 18: Please indicate on a scale from 1 to 5, to what extent do you believe in your skills in the following areas (where 1 means no faith and 5 is very bad faith in skills): 1. setting goals and planning their implementation 1 2 3 4 5 2. identifying new market opportunities 1 2 3 4 5 3. inventing new products / services / technologies 1 2 3 4 5 4. acquiring new clients 1 2 3 4 5 5. financial management 1 2 3 4 5 6. cooperation with other people 1 2 3 4 5 7. people management 1 2 3 4 5 8. leadership 1 2 3 4 5 9. work in conditions of uncertainty or stress 1 2 3 4 5 10. crisis management in the company 1 2 3 4 5 Question 20: Respond to the following areas of activity: (YES / NO) 1. I practice sport regularly 2. I have a hobby / interests that I cherish 3. I am involved in some social activities 4. I help in charity 5. I am a volunteer 6. I am active in politics 7. I travel a lot 8. I actively participate in cultural life (cinema, theater, museums, etc.) 9. I actively participate in religious life