Vol. 8 No. 3 (2020): Business & Management Studies: An International Journal
Articles

AN EMPIRIC APPLICATION TOWARDS DETERMINING THE ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND ETHICAL VALUE PERCEPTION OF SME MANAGERS

PDF (Türkçe)
  • Abdulvahap BAYDAŞ,
  • Salih ERCAN
Abdulvahap BAYDAŞ
Assoc. Prof. Dr., Düzce University
Salih ERCAN
Dr.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v8i3.1568

Published 2020-09-25

Keywords

  • Entrepreneur Entrepreneurship Business Ethics Perception of Ethical Value
  • Girişimci, Girişimcilik, İş Ahlakı, Etik Değer Algısı

How to Cite

BAYDAŞ, A., & ERCAN, S. (2020). AN EMPIRIC APPLICATION TOWARDS DETERMINING THE ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND ETHICAL VALUE PERCEPTION OF SME MANAGERS. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 8(3), 3444–3470. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v8i3.1568

Abstract

1. LITERATURE
1.1. RESEARCH SUBJECT
Studies on entrepreneurship and business ethics have been reached, after a comprehensive English and Turkish literature review. It has been determined that there were very few studies that examined the two issues that are related to either entrepreneurship or ethical evaluation.
Studies on entrepreneurship have revealed that individuals are affected by many factors in becoming entrepreneurs (Tong, Tong & Loy, 2011; Özdemir & Karadeniz, 2011; Canedo et al., 2014; Potishuk & Kratzer, 2017).
It can be stated that entrepreneurship and ethics issues have attracted attention recently, although it is very new in management and business administration. However, researchers focused more on the socio-economic aspect of entrepreneurship, and less attention was paid to the ethical dimension of entrepreneurship (Radouche, 2014; Doğan, 2014). Therefore, putting ethical values in the foreground in entrepreneurship increases the originality of the subject.
The primary purpose of the study is to determine the entrepreneurship and ethical value perceptions of business managers at the SME level. In this context, the perceptions of business managers and entrepreneurs were examined by using entrepreneurship and ethical value scales.
1.2. RESEARCH PURPOSE AND IMPORTANCE
The increases in the education and awareness levels of the information processing tools of individuals have caused them to take the role of entrepreneurship from time to time. It is normal to expect improvement in business ethics, as seen in every process. However, considering our country, it is seen that the Ahi system was much more advanced in the 13th century. Issues that entrepreneurs evaluate as right or wrong in the entrepreneurship process can often be overshadowed by the economic gain (Tekin, Soba, & İlter, 2018).
Changes and transformations in the structure of the market, customer behaviour and expectations, organizational structure and culture depending on the advances in information, communication and internet technologies undoubtedly affect entrepreneurship and ethical dilemmas related to entrepreneurship.
In this context, the objective of the study is to determine the entrepreneurship and ethical value perceptions of business managers at the SME level. The sample of the study consists of 427 managers and entrepreneurs working in SME-level enterprises in Istanbul. Data on research variables were evaluated based on the Entrepreneurship and the Ethical Value scales.
1.3. CONTRIBUTION of the ARTICLE to the LITERATURE
As a result of the literature review, many studies on both entrepreneurship and ethical value were found. However, the number of studies examining both subjects together is almost negligible. This work is expected to fill this gap.
The main feature that distinguishes this study from its peers is that the studies on ethics and entrepreneurship are generally carried out in large-scale enterprises. This study shows the difference in the study when SMEs are taken into consideration.
2. DESIGN AND METHOD
The literature on the subject of the research was collected, and a face-to-face questionnaire survey was carried out. The survey questionnaire form of the study has been designed by using the Ethical Value and the Entrepreneurship Scales together.
Taking into account the questionnaire form applied to achieve the primary purpose of the study, the profile part (demographic characteristics) of the study was interpreted by using the frequency analysis and percentage method. The ethical value and entrepreneurship scales were evaluated by looking at the mean, standard deviation and participation levels. Additionally, factor analysis of both scales was made.
2.1. RESEARCH TYPE
The study is a research article based on cross-sectional analysis, using the convenience sampling method, one of the random sampling methods, in a particular field.
2.2. RESEARCH PROBLEMS
The main problem of the research is to determine the ethical values and entrepreneurship characteristics of SME managers and entrepreneurs. Also, determining the participants and the characteristics of the participants from the perspective of entrepreneurship value scale is another problem.
2.3. DATA COLLECTION METHOD
In the study, the questionnaire form, which is a first-hand data source and original information acquisition tool, was applied face to face. Thus, it was aimed to obtain additional information from the research by observing the reactions of the individuals.
2.4. QUANTITATIVE / QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS
Taking into account the questionnaire form applied in order to achieve the primary purpose of the study, the profile part (demographic characteristics) of the study was interpreted by using frequency analysis and percentage method. The ethical value and entrepreneurship scales were evaluated by looking at the mean, standard deviation and participation levels. Also, Factor Analysis was applied to both scales and entrepreneurship characteristics of individuals were tried to be determined.
2.5. RESEARCH MODEL
In the study, information was collected by doing desk research. Scales were determined based on the collected information and modelled using cross-section analysis by obtaining data from the field.
2.6. RESEARCH HYPOTHESES
Considering the primary purpose of the study, the study has been interpreted by taking the level of participation, standard deviation and average values. It was also subjected to factor analysis. In this context, no hypothesis testing was conducted.
3. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
3.1. FINDINGS as a RESULT of ANALYSIS
As a result of the factor analysis, it has been observed that the ethical value scale had not changed and was the only factor, and the entrepreneurship evaluation scale was divided into nine (9) factors. Accordingly, entrepreneurs are named as Entrepreneurs Acting Strategically, Remaining Unstable, Taking Risk, Resisting Change, Acting Courageous (Assertive), Focused on Financial Situation, Individual Acting, Focused on Certainty and Acting Decisively.
3.2. HYPOTHESIS TEST RESULTS
It has been determined that all statements under the Strategically Acting Entrepreneur dimension are of high importance and the average value of this factor is also high. On the other hand, under the third dimension, "it is important to delegate the responsibilities to the employees" and "it is beneficial to watch the opportunities", under the sixth dimension; "I do not attempt a new undertaking on an issue I know nothing about " and the bottom of the seventh dimension; which is the statements of "individual work brings more success" also have a high level of attendance.


3.3. DISCUSSING the FINDINGS with the LITERATURE
Within the scope of the primary purpose of the study, factor analysis was performed, and the results obtained were discussed with a literature review.
4. CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATION AND
4.1. RESULTS of the ARTICLE
Expressions such as "I will immediately solve negative, unethical situations or behaviours in the workplace", "I do not allow unethical behaviour even for the benefit of my business" and "I apply ethical principles and rules without compromising in any way" are the most critical situations in the ethical value scale.
As a result of the factor analysis, it was observed that the ethical value scale did not change and was the only factor, and the entrepreneurship evaluation scale was divided into nine (9) factors. These factors have been named as Strategically Acting Entrepreneur, Indecisive Entrepreneur, Risk-Taking Entrepreneur, Entrepreneur Resisting Change, Courageous (Enterprise) Entrepreneur, Financial Situation Focused Entrepreneur, Individual Acting Entrepreneur, Specificity-Focused Entrepreneur and Decisive Moving Entrepreneur.
4.2. SUGGESTIONS BASED on RESULTS
Businesses can no longer ignore business ethics in markets with intense competition. As a result of unethical practices, there are permanent job failures, especially related to employees and senior managers. This undermines the reputation of SMEs, especially in developing countries, and negatively affects their sustainability. The firm, the firm's managers or entrepreneurs must act ethically and protect their business interests in order to remain competitive. SME owners and employees should also be more sensitive and understand the importance of ethical behaviour in the business world.
4.3. LIMITATIONS of the ARTICLE
The constraints related to the study can be considered in four general terms. The research covers a specific area since the research was conducted on 427 business managers and entrepreneurs only in a small part of Istanbul Lack of financial resources of individual researchers is a financial constraint. Since it covers a specific time, there is a time constraint. Also, the lack of continuity is a constraint in monitoring the change.

PDF (Türkçe)

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Arslan, M. (2019). İslâm iş Ahlakının Temelleri ve İbn Haldun'da Ahlak Medeniyet İlişkisi. İbn Haldun Çalışmaları Dergisi, 4 (1), 101-128.
  2. Balabkins, N.W. (2003). Adaptation without Attribution? The Genesis of Schumpeter's Innovator, Backhaus, J. (Ed.), In the Joseph Alois Schumpeter Entrepreneurship, Style and Vision (203-220). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, eBook ISBN: 0-306-48082-4, Print ISBN: 1-4020-7463-8.
  3. Barba-Sánchez, V. & Atienza-Sahuquillo, C. (2012) Entrepreneurial Behavior: Impact of Motivation Factors on Decision to Create a New Venture, Investigaciones Europeas de Direccióny Economía de la Empresa 18(2012):132-138.
  4. Başar, B. (2019). Girişimcilerde Kişilik Özellikleri ve Çalışma Ahlakı İlişkisine Yönelik bir Çalışma. (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek lisans tezi). Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  5. Bektaş, Ç. (2015). İşletmelerde İş Ahlakı. Uluslararası İşletme ve Yönetim Dergisi, 3 (3), 327-363.
  6. Berber, A. (2000). Girişimci ile Yönetici Profilinin Karşılaştırılması ve Girişimcilikten Yöneticiliğe Geçiş Süreci. İ.Ü. İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 29 (l), 23-44.
  7. Brown, M.E., Trevino, L.K. & Harrison, D.A. (2005). Ethical Leadership: A Social Learning Perspective for Construct Development and Testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97 (2), 117-134.
  8. Bucar, B., Glas, M., & Hisrich, R.D. (2003). Ethics and Entrepreneurs an International Comparative Study, Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 261-281. doi:10.1016/S0883-9026(01)00083-0
  9. Buchholz, R.A., & Rosenthal, S.B. (2005). The Spirit of Entrepreneurship and the Qualities of Moral Decision Making: Toward a Unifying Framework. Journal of Business Ethics (60), 307-315. DOI 10.1007/s10551-005-0137-0
  10. Burgelman, R.A. (1983). Corporate Entrepreneurship and Strategic Management: Insights from a Process Study. Management Science, 23, 1349-1363.
  11. Burgelman, R.A. (1984). Designs for Corporate Entrepreneurship in Established Firms. California Management Review, 26 (3), 154-166.
  12. Büte, M. (2011). Etik İklim, Örgütsel Güven ve Bireysel Performans Arasındaki İlişki. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 25 (1), 171-192.
  13. Canedo, J.C., Stone, D.L., Black, S.L. & Lukaszewsk, K.M. (2014) Individual factors Affecting Entrepreneurship in Hispanics, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29 (6) 755-772, DOI 10.1108/JMP-11-2012-0333.
  14. Chell, E. (2008). The Nascent Entrepreneur, Business Development and the role of Human Resources. Barret, R. & Mayson, S. (Eds.), In the International Handbook of Entrepreneurship and HRM (pp. 21–46), Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, ISBN: 978-1-84542-926-3
  15. Chell, E., Spence, L.J., Perrini, F., & Harris, J.D. (2014). Social Entrepreneurship and Business Ethics: Does Social Equal Ethical ?. Journal of Business Ethics, DOI: 10.1007/s10551-014-2439-6
  16. Covin, J.G., & Miles, M.P. (1999). Corporate Entrepreneurship and the Pursuit of Competitive Advantage. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23, 47-63.
  17. Çelik, C., & Yılmaz, N. (2018). Kadın Gişimciliğinde Yönetsel Etik Değerler (Mersin İlinde Uygulamalı bir Araştıma). International Journal Entrepreneurship and Management Inquiries Dergisi, 2 (3), 1-15.
  18. Delmar, F. (1996) Entrepreneurial Behavior and Business Performance, Stockholm.
  19. Demirpolat, A., & Yıldız, S. (2014). Modern Ticari Yaşamda MÜSİAD Üyesi Girişimcilerin İş Ahlakı: Denizli Örneği. HUMANITAS, 4, 87-108.
  20. Doğan, N. (2014). Girişimciliğin Etik Boyutu. Bilgi, (28), 86-98.
  21. Drucker, P. (2015). Yönetim (Gözden Geçirilmiş Baskı). İstanbul: Optimist Yayınları.
  22. Eğri, T., & Sunar, L. (2010). Türkiye’de İş Ahlakı Çalışmaları: Mevcut Durum ve Yönelimler. İş Ahlakı Dergisi, 3 (5), 41-67.
  23. Enami, M., & Nazari, K. 2012). Entrepreneurship, Religion and Business Ethicks. Australian Journal of Business and Management Research, 1 (11), 59-69.
  24. Filion, L.J. (1994). Entrepreneurship and Management: Differing but Complementary Processes, 8th Latin Arnerican Conference on Entrepreneurial, 1-18.
  25. Fisscher, O., Frenkel, D., Lurie, Y., & Nijhof, A. (2005). Stretching the Frontiers: An Exploration of the Relations between Entrepreneurship, İnnovation and Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 60, 207-209. DOI 10.1007/s10551-005-0128-1
  26. Fiş, A.M., & Wasti, S.A. (2009). Örgüt Kültürü ve Girişimcilik Yönelimi İlişkisi. ODTÜ Gelişme Dergisi, 35 (Özel Sayı), 127-164.
  27. Floyd, S.W. & Lane, P.J. (2000). Strategizing throughout the Organization: Managing Role Conflict in Strategic Renewal. Academy of Management Review 25, 154-177.
  28. Franco, M., Haase, H. & Lautenschläger, A. (2010). Students' Entrepreneurial Intentions: An Inter-Regional Comparison. Education and Training, 52(4), 260-275. doi:10.1108/00400911011050945
  29. Harmeling, S.S., Sarasvathy, S.D., & Freeman, R.E. (2008). Related Debates in Ethics and Entrepreneurship: Values, Opportunities, and Contingency. Journal of Business Ethics, 84, 341-365. DOI 10.1007/s10551-008-9713-4
  30. Harris, J.D., Sapienza, H.J., & Bowie, N.E. (2009). Ethics and Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 24, 407-418. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.06.001
  31. Hicks, S.R.C. (2009). What Business Ethics can Learn from Entrepreneurship. The Journal of Private Enterprise, 24 (2), 49-57.
  32. Hisrich, R.D., & Michael P.P. (1998). Entrepreneurship (Fourth Edition). United States: The McGraw – Hill Book Co.
  33. Hornsby, J.S., Kuratko, D.F., Shepherd, D.A., & Bott, J.P. (2009). Managers' Corporate Entrepreneurial Actions: Examining Perception and Position. Journal of Business Venturing, 24, 236-247.
  34. Ireland, R.D., Kuratko, D.F., & Morris, M.H. (2006a). A Health Audit for Corporate Entrepreneurship: Innovation at all Levels-Part I. Journal of Business Strategy, 27 (1), 10–17.
  35. Ireland, R.D., Kuratko, D.F., & Morris, M.H. (2006b). A Health Audit for Corporate Entrepreneurship: Innovation at all Levels-Part 2. Journal of Business Strategy, 27 (2), 21–30.
  36. Kamanlı, A.İ. (2015). Girişimci Yöneticinin İşe Tutkunluk ve Liderlik Tarzının Çalışanların Performans Algıları Üzerine Etkisi. (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi). T.C. Marmara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü İşletme Anabilim Dalı Yönetim ve Organizasyon Bilim Dalı. İstanbul.
  37. Kanter, R.M. (1988). When a Thousand Flowers Bloom: Structural, Collective, and Social Conditions for Innovation in Organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 169-211.
  38. Kaptain, M. (2019). The Moral Entrepreneur: A New Component of Ethical Leadership. J Bus Ethics, 156, 1135-1150. DOI 10.1007/s10551-017-3641-0
  39. Karakavak, Ç.G. (2009). Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Ahlaki Yargı Yetenekleri ve Ahlaki Yargı Yetenekleri ile Kendini Gerçekleştirme Düzeylerinin Karşılaştırılması. (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). T.C. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Adana.
  40. Keskin, H., Akgün, A.E., & Koçoğlu, P. (2016). Örgüt Teorisi. Ankara: Nobel Yayınları.
  41. Kök, S.B., & Aksel, İ. (2016). İş Hayatında Nicel Başarı Tanımlamasına bir Karşı Duruş: Erdem Ahlâkı Yaklaşımı. International Conference on Eurasian Economies, 140-149.
  42. Kök, S.B., & Sarıkaya, M. (2013). Yeni Zirve: Girişimcilikte Ahlakın Artan Değeri. International Conference on Eurasian Economies, 657-665.
  43. Kuratko, D.F., Hornsby, J.S., & Bishop, J.W. (2005b). An Examination of Managers' Entrepreneurial Actions and Job Satisfaction. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 1 (3), 275-291.
  44. Kuratko, D.F., Ireland, R.D., Covin, J.G., & Hornysby, J.S. (2005a). A Model of Middle-Level Managers' Entrepreneurial Behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice 29 (6), 699-716.
  45. Longnecker, J. G., McKinney, J. A. ve Moore, C. W. (1989). Egoism and Independence: Entrepreneurial Ethics. Organizational Dynamics, 16(3), 64-72.
  46. LPU (Lovely Professional University) (2013) Entrepreneurshıp and Small Busıness Management, New Delhi: Excel Books Private Limited
  47. Markman, G.D., Russo, M., Lumpkin, G.T., Jennings, P.D., & Mair, J. (2016). Entrepreneurship as a Platform for Pursuing Multiple Goals: A Special Issue on Sustainability, Ethics, and Entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Studies, 53 (5), 673-694. doi: 10.1111/joms.12214
  48. Miles, M.P., Munilla, L.S., & Covin, J.G. (2004). Innovation, Ethics, and Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics (54), 97-101.
  49. Morris, M.H., Kuratko, D.F., & Covin, J.G. (2008). Corporate Entrepreneurship & Innovation. Ohio: Thomson/South-Western Publishers.
  50. Müftüoğlu, T. (2014, 29 Ağustos). Girişimcilik ve Etik Değerler. Dünya Gazetesi.
  51. Ogbari, M.E., Oke, A.O., Ibukunoluwa, A.A., Ajagbe, M.A., & Ologbo, A.C. (2016). Entrepreneurship and Business Ethics: Implications on Corporate Performance. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 6 (S3) 50-58.
  52. Onakoya, A.B., & Abosede, J.A. (2013). The Common Thread Amongstentrepreneur, Manager and Capitalist: A Theoretical Approach. International Journal of Social Sciences and Entrepreneurship, 1 (3), 481-496.
  53. Özdemir, Ö. & Karadeniz, E. (2011) Investigating the Factors Affecting Total Entrepreneurial Activities in Turkey, METU Studies in Development, 38 (Dec.), 275-290.
  54. Özen, K.R., Bayraktaroğlu, S., & Mert, K. (2003) Girişimcilik Ahlakı Girişimciliği Engeller mi?. Hacettepe Üniversitesi 1. Türkiye Uluslararası İş ve Meslek Ahlakı Kongresi, 514-519.
  55. Palma, P.J., e Cunha, M.P. & Lopes, M. (2009) Entrepreneurial Behavior. In book: The Encyclopedia of Positive Psychology (pp.338-342) Editors: S.J Lopez, Publisher: Boston: Blackwell Publishing.
  56. Peris-Ortiz, M., Rueda-Armengot, C., & Osorio, D.B. (2012). Women in Business: Entrepreneurship, Ethics and Efficiency. Int Entrep Manag J, (8), 343–354. DOI 10.1007/s11365-011-0177-0
  57. Phatshwane, P.M.D. (2013) Ethical Perceptions of Managers: A Preliminary Study of Small and Medium Enterprises in Botswana, American International Journal of Contemporary Research, 3 (2), 41-49.
  58. Potishuk, V. & Kratzer, J. (2017) Factors Affecting Entrepreneurial Intensions and Entrepreneurial Attıtudes In Hıgher Educatıon, Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 20, (1), 2017 25-44.
  59. Radouche, T. (2014) The Status of Ethics in the Entrepreneurial Process, International Journal of Business and Management; 9, (6); ISSN 1833-3850 E-ISSN 1833-8119, 199-212.
  60. Schumpeter, J.A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  61. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research. Academy of Management Review, 25, 217–226.
  62. Sommer, S.M., Welsh, D.H.B., & Gubman, B.L. (2000). The Ethical Orientation of Russian Entrepreneurs. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49 (4), 688-708. DOI: 10.1111/1464-0597.00040
  63. Söker, F. (2016). İşletmelerde İç Girişimcilik ve Yönetsel-Dönüşümsel Liderlik: Karaman’da bir Araştırma. (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). T.C. Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İşletme Ana Bilim Dalı, Konya.
  64. Taşgit, M.S. (2012). Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Benlik Saygısı ve Karar Verme Düzeylerinin İncelenmesi. (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). T.C. Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Karaman.
  65. Tekin, M., Soba, M., & İlter, B. (2018). Girişimcilikte İş Ahlâkı ve Sosyal Sorumluluk Algısı: AFİKAD Örneği. Sosyal Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 18 (36), 131-146.
  66. Tenbrunsel, A.E., & Smith‐Crowe, K. (2008). 13 Ethical Decision Making: Where We’ve been and Where We’re Going. The Academy of Management Annals, 2 (1), 545-607. DOI: 10.1080/19416520802211677
  67. Timuroğlu, M.K., & Çakır, S. (2014). Girişimcilerin Yeni bir Girişim Yapma Niyetlerinin Risk Alma Eğilimi İle İlişkisi. AKÜ İİBF Dergisi, 16 (2), 119-136.
  68. Tlaiss, H.A. (2015). How Islamic Business Ethics Impact Women Entrepreneurs: Insights from Four Arab Middle Eastern Countries. J Bus Ethics, 129, 859-877. DOI 10.1007/s10551-014-2138-3
  69. Tong, X.F., Tong, D.Y.K. & Loy, L.C. (2011) Factors Influencing Entrepreneurial Intention Among Unıversity Students, International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanity Studies, 3, (1), ISSN: 1309-8063 (Online) 487-496.
  70. Tuncer, M. (2017). Kurumsal Ahlak Ve Yönetici Ahlakı. Çakmak, M. (Ed.), İş Ahlakı ve Değerler Eğitimi İçerisinde (117-140). Ankara: Pegem Akademi, ISBN 978-605-241-011-0, DOI 10.14527/9786052410110
  71. Ülgen, H., & S. Mirze, S.K. (2013). İşletmelerde Stratejik Yönetim (7. Baskı). İstanbul: Beta.
  72. Vallaster, C., Kraus, S., Lindahl J.M. M., & Nielsen, A. (2019). Ethics and Entrepreneurship: A Bibliometric Study and Literature Review. Journal of Business Research, 99, 226-237.
  73. Vranceanu, R. (2013). Corporate Profit, Entrepreneurship Theory and Business Ethics. Research Center ESSEC Working Paper 1308, HAL Id:hal-00823521
  74. Yıldırım, M.H., Demirel, Y., & İçerli, L. (2011). İşletme Sahibi Yöneticilerin Girişimci Kişilik Özellikleri ile Girişimcilik Becerileri Arasındaki İlişkinin Tespiti: Aksaray Örneği. Organizasyon ve Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 3, (2), 189-199.
  75. Yıldırım, M.H. & Saygın, M. (2013) Business Ethics and Measuring Ethical Perceptions of the Owners and Managers: Evıdence from Businesses in Aksaray Organized Industrial Zone, International Journal of Business and Management Studies, 5, (1), ISSN: 1309-8047 (Online), 284-295.