MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2299521245

Performance, Firm Size, and Management Problem Solving [*]

2000· article· en· W2299521245 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joseph Barbara, H S Sandy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Small Business Management · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFirm Innovation and Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRevenueBusinessWork (physics)Quarter (Canadian coin)Small businessMarketingEmpirical researchEconomicsFinance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Growth in small businesses is rare. This study expands on Penrose's (1957) concept of managerial capacity and links it to firm growth. Growth is hypothesized to occur when a threshold of administrative or managerial acumen is attained by the management team. Empirical analysis is based on a random survey of 1,004 small and medium-sized Canadian businesses. The study found that: fewer than one quarter of the sampled businesses reported two consecutive years of revenue increases; growing firms tended to be younger companies while firms in decline were comparatively older; and the presence of a business plan was highly correlated with performance (yet only one-third of the firms formally planned). The findings are consistent with the theory that small firm growth is neither linear nor described well by biological paradigms. This study also investigated the problems that confront owners and managers at different stages in business development. It found that the severity of managerial problems varies by firm attr ibutes, including size. Problems of domestic demand, the availability of alternative sources of finance, a lack of financial expertise, and lack of information about financing options were particular problems for smaller (micro) operations. Female business owners were more likely to report lack of access to capital as a problem. From the early work of Birch (1979) to more recent work by Mend et al. (1997), longitudinal employment data consistently suggest that the growth of SMEs accounts for a disproportionate share of job creation in North America. Moreover, research also demonstrates that much job creation is attributable to a minority of firms that grow very quickly --the so-called (see, for example, Picot and Dupuy 1995). As a result, governments have sought to encourage small business growth, and researchers have sought to understand better the processes by which businesses develop. However, a dilemma confronts both policy-makers and researchers--although as many as one-half of the owners of new firms seek growth (Blatt 1993; Rosa and Hamilton 1994), gazelles comprise less than five percent of businesses. Research has, as yet, been unable to explain why some growth-oriented businesses fail to grow; nor has research arrived at consensus about what leads to substantive growth performance. This study seeks to add to our understanding of the growth process in small business by attempting to identify the types of problems and impediments owners and managers confront at different times during business development. It investigates the association of management problems with firm size using a sample of 1,004 small and medium-sized Canadian enterprises (henceforth referred to as SMEs). Results of the study are presented in four sections. First, background information from selected theories of SME growth are presented. These lead to the discussion of specific study propositions. Empirical methods and findings are then presented. The article closes with a discussion of results in which recommendations pertaining to future research are offered. Explanations of Small Firm Growth: The Literature The research literature proposing theoretical explanations of small firm growth can be categorized into four approaches. In this section, each approach is described, and important contributions of each are identified. Biological Models of Growth Small firm growth has been described as a staged process, one akin to biological evolution (Gartner 1985; Reynolds and Miller 1988; Reynolds, Storey, and Westhead 1994). Kazanjian (1988) contends that the SME lifecycle model describes the process of product and market change and corresponding changes in management. [1] Kazanjian suggests that firm growth occurs in stages at the level of the firm Kazanjian identifies the following generic sequence: (1) conception and development during which resources are acquired and technology developed; (2) commercialization, which involves production related to start-up; (3) growth, during which sales and market share are developed, which influences organizational arrangements; and (4) stability, which is characterized by profitability, internal control, and establishment of a base for future growth. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.166 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations346
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Small Business ManagementSame topicFirm Innovation and GrowthFrench-language works237,207