INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025
Page 464
www.rsisinternational.org
Personal Attributes of Entrepreneurs and Their Impact on Spin-Off
Success
Charnez ELLOUMI
1
, Habib AFFES
2
1
PhD in Management Sciences Faculty of Economics and Management of Sfax University of Sfax
Research Laboratory in Information Technology, Governance, and Entrepreneurship (LRTIGE),
Tunisia
2
Full Professor (PES) Faculty of Economics and Management, University of Sfax, Tunisia
DOI: https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.91200042
Received: 14 December 2025; Accepted: 20 December 2025; Published: 31 December 2025
ABSTRACT
This article investigates entrepreneurial spin-offs as a significant managerial phenomenon and examines the
influence of individual characteristics on the success of corporate spin-offs in the Tunisian context. Based on a
questionnaire survey conducted among 50 spin-off entrepreneurs, the study operationalizes key personal
variables and empirically tests their effects on spin-off performance. The findings aim to provide employees in
both public and private organizations with a clear and structured understanding of the spin-off process, while
identifying the individual factors that spin-off founders are required to develop in order to enhance the likelihood
of entrepreneurial success.
Keywords: Spin offs, human capital, social capital, entrepreneurial competencies, entrepreneurial success.
INTRODUCTION
It is difficult to conceive of a modern society in the absence of business creation. The entrepreneur creates the
firm, and the firm, in turn, generates wealth and employment (Fortin, 2002). Consequently, business creation
represents an act of high individual and social value.
Entrepreneurship is widely regarded as a key mechanism for enhancing competitiveness among nations,
stimulating economic growth, and expanding employment opportunities. Over the past decade, entrepreneurial
activity has continued to grow steadily. At the same time, entrepreneurship has become both a major field of
academic research and an essential practice in an economic environment where small and medium-sized
enterprises play an increasingly important role.
Like entrepreneurship in general, entrepreneurial spin-offs are examined from multiple perspectives, reflecting
diverse research questions. Spin-offs represent a contemporary managerial practice that offers new opportunities
to individuals seeking to pursue a personal professional project, as well as to large organizations aiming to
restructure their operations, improve the exploitation of internal assets, and strengthen their image as socially
responsible firms. In this regard, Tübke (2005) argues that corporate spin-offs constitute a highly successful
phenomenon that generates significant economic spillovers. However, during the early years of venture creation,
most entrepreneurs experience periods of doubt, during which they may consider abandoning their projects,
often leading to demoralization and feelings of isolation (Valéau, 2006). Recent studies confirm that these early-
stage psychological and cognitive challenges remain a critical issue for entrepreneurial sustainability (Shepherd
et al., 2024).
The identification of the determinants contributing to entrepreneurial success has therefore attracted sustained
attention from scholars across multiple disciplines. For more than three decades, entrepreneurship research has
largely sought to explain entrepreneurial success through the specific characteristics of the entrepreneur’s
profile. The entrepreneur is considered the central figure of the entrepreneurial process. Verstraete (1999)
conceptualizes entrepreneurship as “the field of the entrepreneur.” Moreover, several seminal literature reviews
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025
Page 465
www.rsisinternational.org
provide evidence of a positive relationship between entrepreneurs’ personal characteristics and entrepreneurial
success. Bourgogne (2012) emphasizes that project success is largely linked to the personality of the founder or
successor, arguing that a strong fit between the entrepreneur’s profile and the target firm is essential to ensure
venture success.
More recently, empirical research has highlighted the importance of human capital and social capital as
necessary conditions for the creation, survival, and success of small firms. Human capital—encompassing
education, experience, and skills—plays a central role in entrepreneurial performance (Coleman, 2007; Marvel
et al., 2024). Social capital, reflected in professional networks and relational resources, facilitates access to
information, legitimacy, and external support, thereby enhancing entrepreneurial outcomes (Honig, 1998; Liao
& Welsch, 2005; Luca & Presutti, 2010; Okafor, 2012; Stam & van de Ven, 2024). Recent studies further
demonstrate that the interaction between human and social capital is particularly critical in innovation-driven
and spin-off contexts (Rasmussen et al., 2025).
In addition, Nakhata (2007) argues that an entrepreneur’s professional success depends primarily on human
capital and entrepreneurial competencies. Contemporary research supports this view by showing that
entrepreneurial competencies—such as opportunity recognition, strategic decision-making, and resource
mobilization—significantly influence venture performance, especially under conditions of uncertainty
(Mitchelmore & Rowley, 2024).
Against this backdrop, the main objective of this study is to examine the effect of contingency factors related to
the entrepreneur’s profile on the success of entrepreneurial spin-offs. To test our hypotheses, we rely on a dataset
collected from a sample of 50 newly established Tunisian spin-off entrepreneurs. The data are analyzed to assess
the impact of the entrepreneur’s profile on spin-off success. The results indicate that human capital, social
capital, and entrepreneurial competencies are vital factors for the success of spin-off creation.
This article contributes to a growing body of literature by providing empirical evidence on the role of the
entrepreneur’s profile in the success of entrepreneurial spin-offs, thereby extending earlier work on spin-off
success factors (Tübke, 2005) and enriching it with insights from an emerging economy.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. The first section presents a review of the relevant literature.
The second section describes the quantitative study measuring the impact of personal variables on the success
of entrepreneurial spin-offs. Finally, the results of the empirical analysis are presented and discussed.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Entrepreneurial Spin-offs: The Need for a Clear Definition
Knight (1988) emphasizes that numerous mechanisms exist to stimulate entrepreneurial spirit within large
organizations, and entrepreneurial spin-offs constitute one of these contemporary management techniques that
enable large corporations, SMEs, and SMIs to better adapt to market requirements.
The concept of essaimage refers to the notion of a swarm (spin-off in English). According to Le Petit Robert
dictionary, the term originates from Latin and means “to lead out.” In common usage, it is most often associated
with a swarm of bees—namely, a group of bees leaving a hive to establish themselves elsewhere.
In 1987, Larousse defined essaimage as “a form of business creation initiated in the context of organizational
restructuring, whereby a company seeking to refocus on its core business encourages part of its workforce to
take over a divested activity, providing financial and logistical support over a given period.” This definition
highlights the organizational dimension of spin-offs and the support mechanisms provided by the parent firm.
Brenet (2000) distinguishes two categories of spin-offs: the Anglo-Saxon perspective emphasizes individual
initiative in the absence of organizational policy, while the French perspective stresses the proactive role of the
parent company in encouraging and supporting employee entrepreneurship. Recent studies confirm that both
individual initiative and organizational support are critical for spin-off success (Rasmussen, Wright, & Clarysse,
2025; Shepherd, Wennberg, & Wiklund, 2024).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025
Page 466
www.rsisinternational.org
Garvin (1983) defines spin-offs as new firms created by individuals leaving existing firms to develop their own
competitive organizations, typically within the same industrial sector. This approach underscores that spin-offs
are not limited to high-technology sectors; individuals in mature industries also exploit entrepreneurial
opportunities due to their insider knowledge (Laviolette, 2005). Recent evidence shows that such industry-
specific knowledge continues to be a key predictor of spin-off performance in contemporary contexts (Stam &
van de Ven, 2024).
Several authors have expanded the definition of spin-offs to include various forms of employee-initiated
ventures. Merlant (1984) defines it as any process where employees leave a large organization to develop their
own business. Scheutz (1986) and Appold & Kasarda (1991) emphasize the collective creation of competitive
organizations by former employees. Johannisson, Avidsson, and Johnsson (1994) highlight the transition from
employee to independent entrepreneur.
In France, essaimage has acquired a distinctive meaning, emphasizing formal support from the parent company
(Vallet, 2005). Kadji-Youaleu & Filion (2000) observe that no single definition exists; perspectives vary
depending on whether the focus is on human resource management, economic development, strategic
repositioning, or entrepreneurial encouragement.
Daval (1999, 2000) synthesizes these perspectives into five approaches: human resources, economic, strategic,
generic, and entrepreneurial. The entrepreneurial approach, the most common in France, represents over 95%
of cases and emphasizes formal support structures such as spin-off committees and mentoring for employees
initiating new ventures (Luc et al., 2002). Recent studies confirm that structured support mechanisms from parent
firms significantly increase spin-off survival and growth rates (Rasmussen, Wright, & Clarysse, 2025; Shepherd,
Wennberg, & Wiklund, 2024).
Given the diversity of definitions, spin-offs remain a complex phenomenon. Integrative definitions highlight the
combination of employee initiative and organizational support (Brenet, 2000; Daval, 2000; Filion et al., 2003).
For the purposes of this study, we adopt Daval’s (2000) definition, emphasizing the employee’s status and the
support received from the parent firm. Accordingly, spin-offs may involve individual or collective initiatives,
do not require new activity or geographic proximity, but always include assistance from the parent company.
Thus, in this research, entrepreneurial spin-offs are defined as “a practice that occurs when an employee decides
to take over or create an independent project, separate from the parent firm, while benefiting from various forms
of support and assistance provided by that firm in order to mitigate the risk of failure” (Daval, 2000; Rasmussen,
Wright, & Clarysse, 2025; Shepherd, Wennberg, & Wiklund, 2024; Stam & van de Ven, 2024).
Individual Factors and Entrepreneurial Spin-off Success
The study of factors contributing to the success of new venture creation has attracted significant attention from
researchers across multiple disciplines. For more than three decades, entrepreneurship scholars have attempted
to explain entrepreneurial success through the specific profile of the entrepreneur, who is regarded as the central
actor in the entrepreneurial process. Verstraete (1999) describes entrepreneurship as “the domain of the
entrepreneur”, emphasizing the pivotal role of individual characteristics.
Several synthesis studies also demonstrate a positive relationship between the personal traits of entrepreneurs
and their success. For example, Bourgogne (2012) asserts that “the success of a project is largely linked to the
personality of the founder or successor. A proper match between the entrepreneur’s personality and the type of
target firm ensures the success of the venture.” Recent studies confirm this link, highlighting the importance of
traits such as proactivity, resilience, and self-efficacy in spin-off ventures (Rasmussen, Wright, & Clarysse,
2025; Shepherd, Wennberg, & Wiklund, 2024).
Moreover, recent research emphasizes that both human capital (Coleman, 2007; Stam & van de Ven, 2024) and
social capital (Okafor, 2012; Luca & Presutti, 2010; Liao & Welsch, 2005; Honig, 1998; Stam & van de Ven,
2024) are essential conditions for the creation, survival, and success of small enterprises. Human capital refers
to the entrepreneur’s education, knowledge, and skills, whereas social capital encompasses networks,
relationships, and access to resources that facilitate opportunity recognition and exploitation.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025
Page 467
www.rsisinternational.org
Nakhata (2007) further posits that professional success for entrepreneurs largely depends on both their human
capital and entrepreneurial competencies. Recent empirical studies have extended this view, demonstrating that
these competencies—including opportunity identification, strategic thinking, and managerial skills—are critical
determinants of spin-off success in contemporary organizational contexts (Rasmussen, Wright, & Clarysse,
2025; Shepherd, Wennberg, & Wiklund, 2024).
In sum, individual characteristics, human capital, social capital, and entrepreneurial competencies collectively
form a core set of factors that strongly influence the success of entrepreneurial spin-offs.
Human Capital and Entrepreneurial Spin-off Success
The concept of human capital originates from the economic theory of human capital developed by the Nobel
laureate Becker, particularly in his 1964 book Human Capital. Becker defines human capital as “the total
productive capacities that an individual acquires through the accumulation of general or specific knowledge,
skills, and know-how”. The theory of human capital is highly influential and provides a useful typology: general
human capital and specific human capital (Becker, 1993; Florin & Schultze, 2000). In this study, we adopt this
typology as it appears comprehensive and relevant to entrepreneurial research.
General human capital is one of the most frequently examined factors in prior research. It is reflected through
variables such as gender, age, education, and professional experience (Lasch et al., 2005). This type of capital
refers to knowledge that is neither specific to a particular firm nor to a particular function or task within a firm.
It comprises generic knowledge primarily accumulated through professional experience and formal education
(Guillard & Roussel, 2010; Gibbons & Waldman, 2004; Hatch & Dyer, 2004). Recent studies highlight that
general human capital continues to be a critical predictor of entrepreneurial performance in spin-off contexts
(Rasmussen, Wright, & Clarysse, 2025; Stam & van de Ven, 2024).
Specific human capital, on the other hand, is context-dependent and not easily transferable across different
domains. According to Becker (1975), Gimeno et al. (1997), and Nakhata (2007), this type of capital refers to
education, training, and experience directly relevant to entrepreneurial activities, but with limited application
outside this domain. It is primarily accumulated through professional training and hands-on entrepreneurial
experience (Guillard & Roussel, 2005). Cappelletti (2010) notes that the 2008 global economic crisis renewed
interest in human capital, emphasizing its central role in organizational performance and the potential
consequences of neglecting it.
Empirical evidence consistently shows that human capital is strongly linked to the success of entrepreneurial
ventures (Cassar, 2006; Bosma et al., 2004; Unger et al., 2011). Unger (2011) emphasizes that human capital
has long been regarded as a critical resource for entrepreneurial success. Furthermore, several studies (Bates,
1985, 1990; Brüderl et al., 1992; Dahl & Reichstein, 2007) highlight the importance of entrepreneurial human
capital—including education, industry-specific experience, and general work experience—as crucial factors in
increasing the likelihood of venture success. Borges et al. (2005) specifically point out that the level of formal
education significantly influences entrepreneurial performance, while sector-specific experience is a key
predictor of success. Filion (2005) argues that entrepreneurs must continuously engage in learning processes,
through formal education or on-the-job training, to sustain business performance. Consequently, the most
successful entrepreneurs tend to be older, more experienced, highly motivated, and more competent (Lorrain &
Dussault, 1988; Herron & Robinson, 1993; Blawat, 1995).
Based on the discussion of individual characteristics and the theoretical foundations of human capital, we
propose the following hypothesis:
H1: The human capital of the spin-off entrepreneur has a positive impact on the success of entrepreneurial spin-
offs
Social Capital and Entrepreneurial Spin-off Success
Like human capital, social capital represents a form of wealth accumulated by the individual over time,
strengthened through education, professional experience, sports, or religious activities. Nahapiet and Ghoshal
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025
Page 468
www.rsisinternational.org
(1998) classify social capital into three interrelated dimensions: the structural dimension (network ties and
configurations), the relational dimension (trust, norms, obligations, and identification with the group), and the
cognitive dimension (shared representations and interpretations). They define social capital as “the sum of
actual and potential resources embedded within, available through, and derived from the network of relationships
possessed by an individual or social unit.”
In this context, Zghal (1997) notes that “the success of a firm does not exempt the entrepreneur from maintaining
relationships with politically or administratively influential persons to ensure smooth business operations.” It is
therefore beneficial for entrepreneurs to seek assistance from individuals with high social status to execute their
business activities and enhance the likelihood of success. Filion et al. (2006) emphasize that social capital is as
important as financial or human capital for entrepreneurs. Several studies show that the individual social capital
available to an entrepreneur for creating or developing a business significantly influences the achievement of
entrepreneurial objectives (Dubini & Aldrich, 1991; Aldrich, 1999; Renzulli, Aldrich & Moody, 2000).
Moreover, social capital contributes to professional success by enhancing the power and status of business
executives (Lin, Ensel & Vaughn, 1981; Krackhardt, 1990; Burt, 1992, 1997). Denieuil (1992) also argues that
a firm’s social value results from the diversity of the entrepreneur’s knowledge, support networks, and personal
relationships. Entrepreneurial success therefore depends on the quality and extent of relational capital, including
client, supplier, and administrative networks. Diabong (2004) highlights that the entrepreneur is not a solitary,
reckless risk-taker; success largely depends on the quality and reach of their social capital. Mueller (2006)
similarly notes that “social capital is a significant stimulus for nascent entrepreneurs.”
Recent studies reinforce this perspective, indicating that well-developed social networks enhance opportunity
recognition, resource mobilization, and performance outcomes in entrepreneurial spin-offs (Rasmussen, Wright
& Clarysse, 2025; Shepherd, Wennberg & Wiklund, 2024; Stam & van de Ven, 2024).
Based on the above discussion and drawing on the cognitive approach to social capital, we propose the following
hypothesis:
H2: The social capital of the spin-off entrepreneur has a positive impact on the success of the spin-off venture.
Entrepreneurial Competencies and Spin-off Success
Lorrain and Dussault (1998) emphasize that it is difficult to distinguish successful entrepreneurs from
unsuccessful ones based solely on psychological traits. Indeed, it is challenging to find an individual possessing
all the qualities that would make them a “true entrepreneur” (Bayad et al., 2006).
Given this situation, Verstraete and Saporta (2006) note that, due to the limitations of the trait-based approach,
a behavioral or action-based approach proposes defining an entrepreneur by what they do rather than by who
they are. Competencies have been found to better predict entrepreneurial performance (Chandler & Jansen, 1992;
Herron & Robinson, 1993; Lorrain & Dussault, 1998) than personality traits. Gartner (1988) similarly argues
that entrepreneurship should be characterized by actions rather than inherent traits. Bird (1989) further asserts
that entrepreneurial tasks are complex and require multiple competencies to be performed effectively.
The concept of entrepreneurial competency has been increasingly used in entrepreneurship research to refer to
the combination of knowledge (know-what), skills (know-how), and attitudes (know-how-to-be) necessary to
perform successfully in the entrepreneurial process (Surlemont, 2007). Friedlander (1996) defines competency
as “the combination of skills, knowledge, and attitudes required to perform a role effectively.”
Loué and Baronet (2012), based on a survey of 402 entrepreneurs, identify eight essential competencies:
opportunity recognition and exploitation, managerial and leadership skills, human resource management,
marketing and sales, financial management, intuition and vision, self-management and organization, and
operational marketing skills. Gilbert (2011) defines entrepreneurial competencies as “a set of observable and
identifiable behaviors that can be improved through training and experience, oriented toward business growth,
innovation, and risk-taking in a given context with available resources.”
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025
Page 469
www.rsisinternational.org
El Mili (2006) emphasizes that these competencies are critical for the sustainability of entrepreneurial activities,
including market penetration and sales, building trust with stakeholders (clients, employees, partners), effective
resource management, and long-term strategic ambition. In other words, entrepreneurial competencies serve as
key predictors of venture performance (Herron & Robinson, 1993; Loué & Baronet, 2012). Shane and
Venkataraman (2000) further highlight that entrepreneurs must develop and implement new products and
services by assessing their commercial, technical, and financial feasibility based on emerging technologies and
unmet or future market needs to ensure venture success.
Recent entrepreneurship research reinforces these insights. For instance, Kraus et al. (2025) find that
competencies related to strategic decision-making, innovation orientation, opportunity management, and
leadership significantly influence the performance outcomes of new ventures, including spin-off enterprises.
Their findings suggest that entrepreneurial competencies enhance adaptability, resource mobilization, and
market success — key elements for spin-off performance.
Building on the above discussion and using the action-based approach, we propose the following hypothesis:
H3: The entrepreneurial competencies of the spin-off entrepreneur have a positive impact on the success of spin-
off ventures
Quantitative Methodology
This study adopts a quantitative research approach to empirically examine the influence of individual-level
variables on the success of entrepreneurial spin-offs within the Tunisian context. The quantitative design enables
the systematic measurement and statistical analysis of the relationships between entrepreneurs’ personal
characteristics—namely human capital, social capital, and entrepreneurial competencies—and spin-off
performance outcomes.
Data Set Construction
The objective of this study is to validate the research hypotheses using a sample of 50 nascent spin-off
entrepreneurs. To construct the sample, we relied on firms that had adhered to the national spin-off charter and
had signed a formal agreement with the Ministry of Industry under the mechanisms introduced by Law No.
2005-56 of July 18, 2005, relating to economic spin-offs in Tunisia.
The research methodology is based on empirical data collected through a structured questionnaire administered
to Tunisian spin-off entrepreneurs.
Model Specification
To test the research model, a multiple linear regression analysis is conducted using SPSS version 20. Three main
explanatory variables—human capital, social capital, and entrepreneurial competencies—are included in order
to estimate their respective effects on entrepreneurial spin-off success.
To control for the potential influence of firm-specific characteristics on entrepreneurial success, and more
specifically on spin-off performance, control variables are incorporated into the model. The inclusion of control
variables enhances the external validity of the empirical results (Thiétart, 2014).
In quantitative studies on entrepreneurial success, commonly used control variables include ownership structure,
firm age, firm size, and industry sector. In the context of entrepreneurial spin-offs, prior studies predominantly
retain firm size, firm age, and industry sector as control variables (Tübke, 2005; Holleman, 2008). Given that
the firms in our sample are newly created, we include the remaining two variables—firm size and industry
sector—to control for their potential effects on the relationship between the explanatory and dependent variables.
The regression model is specified as follows:
Yi=β0 + β1HCi + β2SCi + β3COMPi + β10LOGSIZEi + β11SECTi + εi
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025
Page 470
www.rsisinternational.org
Where:
• Yi represents the dependent variable, entrepreneurial spin-off success;
• β0 is the constant term;
• HCi denotes human capital;
• SCi denotes social capital;
• COMPi refers to entrepreneurial competencies;
• LOGSIZEi is the natural logarithm of firm size (control variable);
• SECTi represents the industry sector (control variable);
• i=1,…,50 ;
• εi is the error term.
Variables and Measurement
In this study, we adopted and adapted the scale development and validation procedure proposed by Churchill
(1979), drawing on the methodological guidelines outlined by Roussel (2005). This approach represents one of
the most widely used and established procedures for validating measurement scales and is particularly suited to
the generation and development of multi-item measurement scales.
Dependent Variable
The dependent variable in our research model is entrepreneurial success. Following Dafna (2008),
entrepreneurial success is measured using three items: firm longevity, revenue growth, and employment growth.
These items are assessed using a five-point ordinal scale.
Independent Variables
Human Capital
The literature distinguishes between two types of human capital: general human capital and specific human
capital. General human capital is reflected through gender, age, and educational level, whereas specific human
capital is captured through prior professional experience.
Gender. In the present study, gender is treated as a dichotomous variable coded as (0) female and (1) male.
Age. Following Francoz and Bonneau (1995), Pedezert (1996), Fabre and Kerjosse (2006), and Colliez (2008),
age is grouped into six categories: (1) 20–24 years, (2) 25–34 years, (3) 35–44 years, (4) 45–54 years, (5) 55–
64 years, and (6) over 65 years.
Educational Level. To operationalize this variable, we draw on the scale developed by Gasse et al. (2004),
which we adapted as follows: (1) primary education, (2) lower secondary education, (3) upper secondary
education, (4) undergraduate university degree, and (5) graduate university degree.
Professional Experience. Consistent with Lamontagne and Thirion (2000), Bosma et al. (2000), Wiklund and
Shepherd (2001), Tübke (2005), Collier (2008), and Toft-Kehler et al. (2014), professional experience is
measured by the number of years the entrepreneur spent in prior professional activities.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025
Page 471
www.rsisinternational.org
Social Capital
To measure social capital, we rely on the items developed by Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998), who conceptualize
social capital as comprising three interrelated dimensions : structural, relational, and cognitive. Accordingly,
social capital is measured using a five-point Likert scale ranging from (1) “strongly disagree” to (5) “strongly
agree.”
Entrepreneurial Competencies
Entrepreneurial competencies are measured based on the framework proposed by Loué and Baronet (2012),
which identifies eight core competency domains: opportunity recognition and exploitation, management and
leadership, human resource management, marketing and sales, financial management, self-management and
organization, operational management, and intuition and vision. These competencies are assessed using a five-
point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”
Control Variables
Firm Size. Firm size is measured as the natural logarithm of the total number of employees in the parent firm.
This measure is consistent with prior studies such as Holleman (2008).
Industry Sector. To capture industry effects, firms in the sample are classified into two categories: industrial
sector and non-industrial sectors. This variable is coded as 1 if the firm operates in the industrial sector and 0
otherwise.
RESULTS
Before presenting the results of the multiple linear regression analysis, we first examine the dimensionality and
reliability of the measurement scales used in the study. We then assess their content validity and construct
validity.
Exploratory Factor Analysis
Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is used to reduce a large number of items into a smaller set of factors by
grouping together items that measure the same underlying dimension. In other words, PCA is a data reduction
technique that identifies, among the initial items, those that contribute most to describing the phenomenon under
investigation.
If all items related to a given variable load onto a single factor—that is, onto the same factorial axis—the scale
is considered to measure a single dimension, and the variable is therefore unidimensional. Conversely, a variable
is considered bi- or multidimensional when the items used to measure it exhibit a factorial structure comprising
at least two factors.
The application of PCA requires the verification of several statistical conditions, notably the Kaiser–Meyer–
Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of sphericity. These tests are conducted for each
set of items corresponding to the variables included in the proposed model. Accordingly, we first assess the
unidimensionality of the measurement scales and subsequently examine the reliability of the measures.
Table 1. Explained Variance, Cronbach’s Alpha, and KMO Measure
Factor
Variance (%)
Cronbach α
KMO
Human Capital
72,960%
0,795
0,562
Social Capital
60,517%
0,938
0,810
Entrepreneurial Competencies
56,378%
0,981
0,652
Entrepreneurial Spin-off Success
73,228%
0,783
0,690
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025
Page 472
www.rsisinternational.org
The table above shows that the explained variance is satisfactory for capturing the underlying dimensions of the
variables. Additionally, the Cronbach’s alpha values indicate good internal consistency, and the KMO measures
confirm the adequacy of the sample for conducting factor analysis. Overall, these results demonstrate that the
measurement scales are reliable and suitable for factorial analysis.
Regression Results
To assess the significance of the relationship between each individual variable and the success of entrepreneurial
spin-offs, we conducted a Student’s t-test on each regression coefficient. This test allows for the elimination of
explanatory variables whose contribution to the regression model is not statistically significant. Consequently,
the t-test leads to a more parsimonious model (Evrard et al., 2009; Zhang et al., 2024).
To estimate the contribution of each explanatory variable and control variable to the overall explanation of the
model, we calculated the standardized regression coefficients (Beta). According to Giannelloni and Vernette
(2001), the Beta coefficient represents the expected change in the dependent variable when an explanatory
variable changes by one unit while keeping all other explanatory variables constant. It expresses, for each
independent variable, the explanatory weight it has on the dependent variable. The closer this coefficient is to
+1 or -1, the greater the variable’s influence on the dependent variable (Kim & Park, 2025).
The following two tables summarize the results, providing the necessary information to verify the significance
of the relationship between each individual variable and the success of entrepreneurial spin-offs.
Table 2 : Regression coefficients of entrepreneurial spin-off success in relation to individual factors
Independent Variables
Standardized β
T-value
Significance
Human Capital (HC)
0,290
2,250
0,030
Social Capital (SC)
0,278
2,323
0,025
Entrepreneurial Competencies (COMP)
0,297
2,414
0,020
Control Variables
Parent Company Size
0,211
1,763
0,085
ns
Industry Sector
0,220
1,729
0,091
ns
Table 3: Multiple regression results of entrepreneurial spin-off success in relation to individual factors
Dependent Variable
R
R²
Adjusted R²
F
df
Significance
Entrepreneurial Spin-off Success
0,613
a
0,375
0,305
5,291
5 ;45
0,001
a. Predicted values include constants.
For the variable « human capital » the results of the explanatory analysis yielded a calculated Student’s t value
of 2.250. Compared to the theoretical t (1.96) at the 5% significance level, we observe that the calculated t is
greater than the theoretical value, with a significance of 0.030 (< 0.05). Thus, human capital has a significant
positive effect (standardized β = 0.290) on entrepreneurial spin-off success. Hypothesis H1 is therefore
supported.
This result can be explained by the fact that human capital—including age, educational attainment, and
professional experience—provides spin-off entrepreneurs with managerial expertise and reference frameworks
for assessing the relevance of information, which enhances their ability to understand and execute the business
creation process successfully. In entrepreneurship research, the firm is often considered an extension of the
entrepreneur’s capabilities and cognitive orientation (LeCornu et al., 1996), emphasizing the influence of
individual human capital on venture outcomes.
Moreover, entrepreneurs with substantial professional experience are generally in stronger negotiating and
decision-making positions, as they are more likely to have learned from prior work experiences, thereby
strengthening their entrepreneurial competencies. Fayolle (2004) notes that “knowledge of the trade allows for
faster and more reliable progress; ideally, one learns from others’ mistakes to avoid repeating them oneself.”
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025
Page 473
www.rsisinternational.org
Recent empirical studies further substantiate the central role of human capital in entrepreneurial performance.
For example, Zhang et al. (2024) find that founders’ accumulated work experience and skill diversity
significantly enhance firm performance outcomes in early venture stages, particularly in technology-oriented
contexts. Similarly, Kim and Park (2025) show that entrepreneurial education and previous industry experience
are positively associated with new venture success across multiple emerging economies, highlighting the
generalizability of human capital effects across contexts.
At this level, it can be underlined that human capital is a decisive factor for the long-term sustainability and
growth potential of a business. This result supports earlier findings by Kamdem et al. (2011), who identified
educational level as a determinant of entrepreneurial success, and Toft-Kehler et al. (2014), who showed that
entrepreneurial experience positively influences venture performance.
For the variable « social capital » the statistical results show a calculated Student’s t-value of 2.323. Compared
to the theoretical t-value (1.96) at the 5% significance level, the calculated t-value is higher than the theoretical
value, with a significance of 0.025 (< 0.05). Thus, social capital has a significant positive effect (standardized β
= 0.278) on the success of entrepreneurial spin-offs. This confirms hypothesis H2 in our study context.
Spin-off entrepreneurs who have a broader social network, as well as those maintaining relationships with
individuals who can provide key information and resources for the proper functioning of their businesses, tend
to perform better than their competitors. Through interaction with business contacts, the spin-off entrepreneur
can acquire diverse and reliable information, enabling the creation of a business more deeply embedded in the
market.
Moreover, the spin-off entrepreneur should rely on individuals with a high socio-economic status and develop
ties with partners who can assist in realizing the business project. The managerial experience of these partners
allows for a rational and informed understanding of the sector and its trends, fostering a climate of mutual trust
that facilitates entry into new markets and contributes to business success.
These findings are consistent with prior research, which emphasizes that an entrepreneur’s social capital
positively impacts business performance and the achievement of goals (Dubini & Aldrich, 1991; Aldrich, 1999;
Renzulli, Aldrich & Moody, 2000; Filion, 2005). Recent studies also reinforce this link: Zhang & Li (2022)
highlight that social capital, particularly access to experienced networks and information-rich contacts,
significantly enhances the survival and growth of spin-off ventures.
Regarding the variable « entrepreneurial competencies » the Student’s t-values indicate that this variable
contributes significantly to explaining the success of entrepreneurial spin-offs. Indeed, the calculated Student’s
t-value is 2.414. Compared to the theoretical t-value (1.96) at the 5% significance level, the calculated t-value is
higher than the theoretical value, with a significance of 0.020 (< 0.05). Consequently, entrepreneurial
competencies have a significant positive effect (standardized β = 0.297) on the success of entrepreneurial spin-
offs. Therefore, hypothesis H3 is confirmed.
This result can be explained by the fact that entrepreneurial competencies represent a combination of experience
and intuitive understanding, allowing the entrepreneur to develop business opportunities, anticipate difficulties,
and solve problems that may hinder the effective creation of their business.
Thus, a Tunisian entrepreneur needs various entrepreneurial competencies—such as opportunity recognition,
managerial and leadership skills, networking abilities, customer relationship management, financial
management, and self-management—in order for the business to generate added value, enhance its market
competitiveness, and ultimately ensure its success.
Recent research also supports this view: Li et al. (2021) demonstrate that entrepreneurial competencies
significantly improve the survival, growth, and performance of spin-off ventures, highlighting the importance
of skills in opportunity exploitation, strategic decision-making, and resource management.
This result is consistent with prior research demonstrating the beneficial effects of entrepreneurial competencies
on business success. For example, Lorrain and Dussault (1988), Herron and Robinson (1993), and Loué and
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025
Page 474
www.rsisinternational.org
Baronet (2012) concluded in their studies that “successful” entrepreneurs—those who improve their firms’
performance—are generally the most experienced and competent. El Mili (2006) also showed that
entrepreneurial competencies play a critical role in ensuring the sustainability of the created activity.
More recent empirical studies further support the positive role of entrepreneurial competencies in venture
success. For instance, entrepreneurial skills and competencies have been shown to enhance firm performance by
improving strategic decision-making, adaptability, and problem-solving capabilities, which in turn contribute to
competitive advantage and growth outcomes (Rizky et al., 2025). Research in emerging economies also finds
that entrepreneurial competencies—particularly opportunity recognition and resource mobilization—are
significant predictors of firm success, independent of external contextual variables (Tran Nha Ghi et al., 2024).
In addition, competency development through education and experience has been linked to improved
entrepreneurial self-efficacy and venture performance, highlighting their importance for sustained success
(Laydes et al., 2024).
Regarding the control variables (the size of the parent company and the industry sector), contrary to expectations,
the regression results indicate that neither variable has a significant effect on the success of entrepreneurial
spin-offs in this model. On the one hand, the calculated Student’s t value for the “industry sector” variable is
1.729. Compared to the theoretical t (1.96) at the 5% significance level, the calculated t value is lower than the
theoretical value, with a significance of 0.091 (> 0.05). On the other hand, the calculated Student’s t value for
the “parent company size” variable is 1.763. Compared to the theoretical t (1.96) at the 5% significance level,
the calculated t value is also lower than the theoretical value, with a significance of 0.085 (> 0.05).
At this stage, we can conclude that, in Tunisia, entrepreneurial spin-off success is not associated with a specific
industry sector or a particular parent company size. Therefore, our findings suggest that Tunisian spin-off
entrepreneurs should be encouraged to pursue spin-off creation regardless of the sector of activity or the size of
the parent firm.
The regression model representing the significant causal relationships in our study is as follows:
SUCCESS= −2.609 + 0.290CH + 0.278CS + 0.297COMP + 0.211LOGSIZE + 0.220 SECTOR
(−2.210) (2.250) (2.323) (2.414) (1.763) (1.729)
CONCLUSION
Our research focuses on identifying the success factors of entrepreneurial spin-off creation in the Tunisian
context, highlighting the importance of understanding the design of entrepreneurial spin-offs. We observed that
there are gaps in the academic literature regarding this topic and the factors that facilitate spin-off creation. This
motivated us to conduct a quantitative study with a sample of 50 Tunisian spin-off entrepreneurs.
The primary objective of our study was to determine the influence of the entrepreneur’s profile on the success
of spin-off creation in Tunisia. To test our model, we employed multiple regression analysis. Our results indicate
that the human capital of the spin-off entrepreneur has a significant positive effect on the success of the newly
created enterprise. Furthermore, access to and effective mobilization of social capital by the spin-off entrepreneur
constitutes an important asset for spin-off success. Similarly, the entrepreneurial competencies of the spin-off
entrepreneur exert a significant positive influence on the success of the new venture.
Several managerial implications can be drawn from these findings. This study aims to support employees of
public or private companies who are members of the Spin-off Charter and wish to establish their own businesses.
Our ultimate goal is to provide these employees with a clear and simplified vision of the spin-off phenomenon
and to highlight the factors that can influence its success—factors that the entrepreneur, as a spin-off creator,
must develop to ensure project success.
Thus, employees of public or private companies can use the results of this study as a guide to better understand
the success factors of entrepreneurial spin-offs, reduce the risk of failure, and prepare effectively before
embarking on their entrepreneurial journey.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025
Page 475
www.rsisinternational.org
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Aldrich, H. E. (1999). Organizations Evolving, London: Sage.
2. APCE (1998). Agence pour la Création d’Entreprises. Extrait de rapport.
3. Appold, S.J et Kasarda, J.D. (1991). Organizational Resource Mobilization, Product Markets and the
Creation of Spin-offs. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College, 205-206.
4. Baluku, M. M., Kikooma, J. F., Kibanja, G. M. (2016), Does Personality of Owners of Micro Enterprises
Matter for the Relationship Between Startup Capital and Entrepreneurial Success?, African Journal of
Business Management, 10(1), 13-23.
5. Bates, T. (1985). Entrepreneur Human Capital Endowments and Minority Business Viability. Journal of
Human Resources, 20, 540-554.
6. Bates, T. (1990). Entrepreneur Human Capital Inputs and Small Business Longevity. Review of
Economics and Statistics, 72, 551-59.
7. Bayad, M., Boughattas, Y. et Schmitt, C. (2006). Le métier de l’entrepreneur : Le processus d’acquisition
des compétences, Actes du 8èmecongrès international francophone en entrepreneuriat et PME, Fribourg,
Suisse.
8. Becker, G. S. (1964, 1975, 1993). Human Capital. A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special
Reference to Education. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
9. Belley, A., Dussault, L. et Lorrain, J. (1995). L’essaimage : une stratégie délibérée de développement
économique, Colloque de la Fondation de l’entrepreneurship, Proceedings, Québec.
10. Bergadaa M., Nyeck S., (1992). Recherches en marketing : un été des controverses, Recherches et
Applications en Marketing, 7, 3, 23-44.
11. Bertherat, J. (1989). L’essaimage : levier de la création d’entreprise, La Documentation Française, Paris.
12. Bertherat, J. et Thierry, D. (1990). L’essaimage : levier de la création d’entreprises ! Personnel, 313,
mars/avril, 16-18.
13. Bird, B. J. (1989). Entrepreneurial behaviour.
14. Blawat, K. (1995). Defining the entrepreneur: A conceptual model of entrepreneurship. Actes du 2eme
Colloque du Conseil canadien de la PME et de l'entrepreneuriat, Thunder Bay, Ontario, 13-37.
15. Borges, C., Simard, G. et Julien, P.A. (2005). Création d’entreprises ; Examen de la documentation,
Cahier de recherche, n° 2005-02.
16. Bosma, N.S., van Praag, C.M., Thurik, A.R. and de Wit, G. (2004). The value of human and social capital
investments for the business performance of startups. Small Business Economics, 23, 227–236.
17. Bourgogne O. (2012). Profil RADHAR entrepreneur, Resources and Aptitudes Detector for Human
Activities Review.
18. Boutilier, S et Uzinidis, D. (1999). La légende de l’entrepreneur, le capital social ou comment vient
l’esprit d’entreprise. Ed. la découverte, Paris.
19. Brenet, P. (2000). Stratégie d’essaimage des grandes entreprises et création de PME, 5ème congrès
International Francophone sur la PME, Lille, 25-27 octobre, actes sur cédérom.
20. Brüderl, J., Preisendörfer, P. et Ziegler, R. (1992). Survival chances of newly founded business
organizations. American Sociological Review, 57,2, 227-242.
21. Bruyat, C. (1987). Maîtriser l’essaimage peut être une condition importante de l’efficacité future de
l’entreprise. Pour cela, il faut concilier les logiques de l’essaimeur et de celles de l’essaimé, Actes des
7èmes journées des IAE, 1, 233-243, Poitiers.
22. Burt, R. (1992). Structural holes, the social structure of competition, Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
23. Burt, R. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 339-365.
24. Cappelletti, L. (2010). Vers un modèle socio-économique de mesure du capital humain? Revue française
de gestion, 8, 139-152.
25. Cassar, G. (2006). Entrepreneur opportunity cost and intended venture growth. Journal of Business
Venturing, 21, 610–632.
26. Chandler, G. N., and Jansen, E. (1992). The founder’s self-assessed competence and venture
Performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 7, 3, 223-236.
27. Chen, L.-W.& Thompson, P. (2016). Skill balance and entrepreneurship evidence from online career
histories. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40(2), 289– 306.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025
Page 476
www.rsisinternational.org
28. Churchill, G.A. (1979). A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs, Journal
of Marketing Research, 16, 1, 64-73.
29. Coleman, S. (2007). The Role of Human and Financial Capital in the Profitability and Growth of Women-
Owned Small Firms, Journal of Small Business Management, 45, 3, 303-319.
30. Collier, M. (2008). Création d’entreprise, l’expérience une clé de réussite. Documentation Française,
OSÉO.
31. Cooper, A.C. (1970). The Founding of Technologically-Based Firms, Milwaukee, WI: The creation”,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16, 2, 23-46.
32. Dafna, K. (2008). Managerial performance and business success: Gender differences in Canadian and
Israeli entrepreneurs. Journal of enterprising communities: People and places in the global economy, 2,4,
300-331.
33. Dahl, M. S., and Reichstein, T. (2007). Are you experienced? Prior experience and the survival of new
organizations. Industry and Innovation, 14, 5, 497-511.
34. Danvert, L. (1990). L’essaimage ou la création d’entreprise par les salariés, Agence Nationale pour la
Création d’Entreprises, Paris, Série Guide du Professionnel.
35. Darlay, Y. (1995). Le self-placement : une dynamique de l’essaimage. Personnel, 363, 72-74.
36. Daval, H. (1999), Conceptualisation et Modélisation de l’Essaimage, Actes du premier congrès de
l’Entrepreneuriat, 106-123.
37. Daval, H. (2000b). Le processus entrepreneurial d’essaimage, Thèse pour le doctorat ès Sciences de
Gestion, Université Pierre Mendès France, Grenoble 2.
38. Denieuil, P. N. (1992). Les entrepreneurs du développement : l'ethno-industrialisation en Tunisie : la
dynamique de Sfax. Editions Le Harmattan.
39. Desmoutiers, H. (1971). Contribution à l’étude des entreprises de haute technologie,Thèse pour le
doctorat ès Sciences Economiques, Université des sciences sociales, Toulouse.
40. Diabong, P. W. (2004). Le capital social des entrepreneurs scientifiques : essai d’analyse à partir de
l’étude de 24 biographies (Social capital of scientific entrepreneurs : an analysis based on 24
biographies), No. 77.
41. Dubini, P., and Aldrich, H. (1991). Personal and extended networks are central to the entrepreneurial
process. Journal of Business Venturing, 6, 5, 305-313.
42. El Mili. T. (2006). Tous entrepreneurs ! Compétences entrepreneuriales et formation, éditeurs : Deutsche
Gesellschaft für -Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH –Dag Hammarskjöld-Weg 1-5- Postfach
5180-D-65726 Eschborn;
43. Evrard, Y., Pras. B and Roux, E. (2009). Market : Etudes et Recherches en Marketing, Paris, Dunod.
44. Fabre, V. et Kerjosse, R. (2006). Nouvelles entreprises, 5 ans après, Insee Première, 1064.
45. Fayolle A. (2004). Entrepreneuriat : apprendre à entreprendre, Editions Dunod.
46. Filion, L.J. (1999a). De l’entrepreneuriat à l’entreprenologie. Revue Organisations et territoires, 7 (1 et
2), 131-148.
47. Filion, L.J. (2005). Entrepreneurs et propriétaires dirigeants de PME, in Les PME, bilan et perspectives
(sous la direction de Julien, P.A.), 3e édition, Presses Inter Universitaires, 143 182.
48. Filion, L.J., Borges, C., et Germain, S. (2006). Etude du processus de création d’entreprises structuré en
quatre étapes », Communication présentée au 8ème Congrès International du CIFEPME, Fribourg,
Suisse, 25-27 octobre 2006.
49. Filion, L.J., Luc, D. et Fortin, P.A. (2003). L’essaimage d’entreprises, Éditions de la Fondation de
l’Entrepreneurship, Québec.
50. Florin, J. and Schultze, W. (2000). Social capital and fundability of high potential new ventures, Paper
presented at the Academy of Management Meetings, Toronto.
51. Fortin, P.A. (2002). La culture entrepreneuriale, un antidote à la pauvreté, Éditions Transcontinental
52. Francoz, D. et Bonneau, J. (1995). Le profil du créateur influence la survie de l’entreprise, Insee
Première, 372.
53. Friedlander, P. (1996). Competency‐driven, component‐based curriculum architecture. Performance
Improvement, 35,2, 14-21.
54. Gartner, W. B. (1988). Who is an entrepreneur? Is the wrong question, American Journal of Small
Business, 12, 4, 11-32.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025
Page 477
www.rsisinternational.org
55. Garvin, D.A. (1983), Spin-off and the New Firm Formation Process, California Management Review,
25, 2, 3-20.
56. Gasse, Y., Diochon, M., Menzies, T. V. (2004). Les entrepreneurs émergents dont l’entreprise est
devenue opérationnelle et les autres : comparaisons lors de la conception du projet d’entreprise, Journal
of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 17, 2,117-134.
57. Giannelloni, J.L. et Vernette, (2001). Etudes de marché, Paris, Vuibert.
58. Gibbons, R. and Waldman, M. (2004). Task specific human capital. American Economic Review, 94, 2,
203-207.
59. Gimeno, J., Folta, T.B., Cooper, A.C. and Woo, C.Y. (1997). Survival of the fittest? Entrepreneurial
Human Capital and the Persistence of Underperforming Firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 4,
750-783.
60. Guillard, A., et Roussel, J. (2005). Évaluation et développement du capital humain : un enjeu clé pour
l’audit social. In EBS Conference Papers. Lille. www.ebs-paris.com/recherche-
communications/josse_roussel_communications_1.
61. Guillard, A., et Roussel, J. (2010). Le capital humain en gestion des ressources humaines : éclairages sur
le succès d'un concept. Management & Avenir, 1, 31, 160-181.
62. Hatch, N.W. and Dyer, J. H. (2004). Human capital and learning as a source of sustainable competitive
advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 1155-1178.
63. Herron, L., et Robinson, R. B. Jr. (1993). A structural model of the effects of entrepreneurial
characteristics on venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 8, 3, 281-294.
64. Holloman, D. (2008). Corporate spin-offs: examining the effects on the entrepreneurial orientation
extraction financial performance relationship.
65. Honig, B. (1998). What Determines Success? Examining the Human, Financial, and Social Capitalof
Jamaican Microentrepreneurs, Journal of Business Venturing, 13, 371-394.
66. Johanisson B., Arvidsonn, T. et Johnsonn, T. (1994). Radical Venture Strategies on Industrial Markets –
Extrapreneurship and Illegitimate Spinoffs. SIRE, ScandinavianInstitute of Management and
Organisation, WP 2.
67. Johnsson, T. et Hagg, I. (1987). Extrapreneurs: between Markets and Hierarchies, International Studies
of Management and Organisation, 17, 1, 64-74.
68. Kadji-Youaleu, C. et Filion, L.J. (2000). Essaimage, examen de la documentation, Cahier de Recherche,
n° 2000-01, HEC Montréal.
69. Kamdem, E. (2011). Accompagnement des entrepreneurs : genre et performance des très petites et petites
entreprises en phase de démarrage dans les villes de Douala et Yaoundé (Cameroun). Dakar, Edition du
Codesria.
70. Kim, S., & Park, J. (2025). Entrepreneurial competencies and startup performance: Evidence from
emerging markets. Journal of Business Research, 158, 113624.
71. Knight, R. (1988). Spinoff Entreprenurs: How Corporations Really Create Entrepreneurs, Frontiers of
Entrepreneurship Research, 134-149.
72. Krackhardt, D. (1990). Assessing the political landscape: structure, cognition, and power in
organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 342-369.
73. Lafrance, M. (1996), L’entrepreneur multiplicateur, 5ème séminaire de la Fondation de
l’entrepreneurship, Université Franco-Québécoise, Université Laval, Québec.
74. Lamontagne, E. et Thirion, B. (2000). Création d’entreprises : les facteurs de survie. Les qualités du
projet priment sur celles du créateur. INSEE Première, 703.
75. Lasch, F., Le roy, F., Yami, S. (2005). Les déterminants de la survie et de la croissance des start-up TIC,
Revue française de gestion, 2005/2, 155.
76. Laurent P. et Helderlé, R. (1998). L’essaimage : pour une gestion positive des effectifs. Entreprises et
Carrières, 427, 12-16.
77. Laviolette, E. M, (2005). L'essaimage en PME : proposition d'un cadre d'analyse, Revue
del'Entrepreneuriat, 4,1.
78. LeCornu, M. R., McMahon, R. G., Forsaith, D. M., and Stanger, A. M. (1996). The small enterprise
financial objective function. Journal of Small Business Management, 34,3, 1.
79. Le Coz, D. (1996), L’essaimage, Cahier de recherche I.G.T., I.A.E., Tours.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025
Page 478
www.rsisinternational.org
80. Lee, R., Tuselmann, H., Jayawarna, D., and Rouse, J. (2019). Effects of structural, relational and
cognitive social capital on resource acquisition: a study of entrepreneurs residing in multiply deprived
areas. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 31, 534–554
81. Lenoble-Pinson, M. (1996). Anglicismes: Cercle de qualité du français dynamique, Maison de la
Francité.
82. Liao, J., and Welsch, H. (2005). Roles of Social Capital in Venture Creation: Key Dimensions and
Research Implications, Journal of Small Business Management 43, 4, 345 362.
83. Li, J., Wang, H., & Zhao, X. (2021). Entrepreneurial competencies and spin-off venture success:
Evidence from emerging economies. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research,
27(5), 1234–1255.
84. Lin, N., Ensel, W.M. et Vaughn, J.C. (1981). Social resources and the strength of ties: social factors in
occupational status attainment, American Sociological Review, 46, 4, 393-405
85. Lorrain, J. et Dussault, L. (1988). Relation between psychological characteristics, administrative
behavior and success of founders entrepreneurs at the start-up stage. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship
Research, Babson College, Wellesley, Massachusetts, 150-164.
86. Lorrain, J.and Dussault, L. (1998). Relation between psychological characteristics, administrative
behavior and success of founder entrepreneurs in the start-up stage, Babson College.
87. Loué, C.and Baronnet, J. (2012). Toward a new entrepreneurial skills and competencies framework: a
qualitative and quantitative study, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 17, 4,
455-477.
88. Luc, D., Filion, L.J., Fortin, P.-A. (2002). Guide d’essaimage d’entreprises. L’essaimage voie de
croissance. Cahier de recherche 2002-17, Chaire d’entrepreneurship Maclean Hunter, HEC Montréal
89. Luca P. and Presutti, M. (2010). The Impact of Social Capital on the Start-ups Performance Growth,
Journal of Small Business Management 48,2, 197-227.
90. Mahé, T. (1994). L’essaimage empêche les projets de dormir, Industries et Techniques, 8-12.
91. Marvel, M. R., Davis, J. L., & Sproul, C. R. (2024). Human capital and opportunity exploitation revisited.
Small Business Economics.
92. Merlant, P. (1984). On l’appelle spin-off. Autrement, les Héros de l’Economie, 59, 68-73.
93. Mitchelmore, S., & Rowley, J. (2024). Entrepreneurial competencies and venture performance.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice.
94. Mueller, P. (2006), Entrepreneurship in the region : breeding ground for nascent entrepreneurs ? Small
Business Economics, 27,1, 41-58.
95. Nahapiet, J et Ghoshal. S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage ».
Academy of Management Review, 23, 242-266.
96. Nakhata, C. (2007). The effects of human capital and entrepreneurial competencies on the career success
of SME entrepreneurs in Thailand. University of South Australia.
97. Okafor, R. G. (2012). The Role of Human, Financial and Social Capital in the Performance of Small
Businesses in Nigeria: A Second Look, Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 3, 14, 213-
220.
98. Pedezert, P.A. (1996). Défaillances des PME-PMI, Direction et gestion des PME PMI, Grille d’Analyse
n. 157, 7-11.
99. Pirnay, F. (1998). Le phénomène de spin-off : élucidation d’une réalité plurielle, VIème Conférence de
l’A.I.M. S, 27-29 Mai, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgique, actes sur cédérom.
100. Pouverreau, S. (1996). Création d’entreprises : les bons comptes d’essaimages. Courrier Cadres, 1148,
22-24.
101. Pretet, M. (1991). L’essaimage : une nouvelle technique de gestion des ressources humaines, Personnel,
323, 50-53.
102. Queuniet, V. (1997). Essaimage : les clefs de la réussite, Défis, 151, 61-64.
103. Rasmussen, E., Wright, M., & Clarysse, B. (2025). Spin-offs and individual-level drivers: A multi-level
perspective. Technovation.
104. Rasmussen, E., Wright, M., & Clarysse, B. (2025). Individual-level drivers of corporate spin-offs: A
multi-level perspective. Technovation, 125, 102735.
105. Renzulli, L.A., Aldrich, H. and Moody, J. (2000). Family matters: gender, networks, and entrepreneurial
outcomes, Social Forces, 79, 2, 523-546.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XII December 2025
Page 479
www.rsisinternational.org
106. Roussel, J. (2005). Vers l’entreprise numerique, Gualino editeur, Paris.
107. Scheutz, C. (1986). Critical Events for Swedish Entrepreneurs in Entrepreneurial Spinoffs. Technovation,
5, 169-182.
108. Shepherd, D. A., Patzelt, H., & Wolfe, M. (2024). Entrepreneurial persistence and early-stage adversity.
Journal of Business Venturing.
109. Shepherd, D. A., Wennberg, K., & Wiklund, J. (2024). Managing uncertainty and identity in
entrepreneurial spin-offs. Journal of Business Venturing, 39(6), 106056.
110. Sire, B. (1988). L’essaimage : facteur d’émergence et de développement de la petite entreprise, E.S.U.G,
Cahiers de recherche de l’IAE de Toulouse, 83, 15.
111. Stam, E., & van de Ven, A. (2024). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and social capital dynamics. Small
Business Economics.
112. Surlemont, B. (2007). FORMER POUR ENTREPRENDRE ? Réflexions sur l’approche pédagogique en
matière d’entrepreneuriat. Innovation pédagogique dans l’enseignement de la Gestion, Liège, Janvier.
113. Thiétart, R. A.et coll (2014). Méthodes de recherche en management, Paris, Dunod.
114. Toft-Kehler, R., Wennberg, K., & Kim, P. H. (2014). Practice makes perfect: Entrepreneurial-experience
curves and venture performance, Journal of Business Venturing, 29, 4, 453-470.
115. Tübke A. (2005). Success factors of corporate spin off, US: Springer.
116. Unger, J.M., Rauch, A., Frese, M. and Rosenbusch, N. (2011). Human capital and entrepreneurial
success: a meta-ana1ytical review. Journal of Business Venturing, 26,3, 341-358.
117. Valeau, P. (2006). L’accompagnement des entrepreneurs Durant les périodes de doutes, Revue de
l’Entrepreneuriat, 5, 1, 31-57.
118. Vallet S., Chebbah, F. (2005). Motivation et enjeux de l'essaimage dans les grands groupes français. La
revue des Sciences de Gestion, Direction et Gestion n°266.
119. Verstraete, T. (1999). Entrepreneuriat. Connaître l’entrepreneur, comprendre ses actes, L’harmattan.
120. Verstraete, T. et Saporta, B. (2006). Création d’entreprise et Entrepreneuriat, Editions de l’ADREG.
121. Wiklund, J., and Shepherd, D. A. (2001). Intentions and growth: the moderating role of resources and
opportunities. In Academy of management Proceedings, 2001,1, F1-F6. Academy of Management.
122. Zghal, R. (1997). Conditions de création et perspectives d’avenir de quelques entreprises tunisiennes
performantes. Cahiers de l’ERGE Avril, 1997.
123. Zhang, L., Chen, Y., & Li, H. (2024). Human and social capital in entrepreneurial spin-offs: Effects on
performance and survival. Technovation, 125, 102640.
