Entrepreneurial alertness : Study of the Influence of Individual Characteristics and Entrepreneurship

This research tried to understand which statistical variables associated to the individual and the company influence the entrepreneurial alertness. The sample was constituted by 180 entrepreneurs. The entrepreneurial alertness was measured in agreement with the model of Tang, Kacmar and Busenitz (2012). Descriptive statistical tests and normality exam were developed; as well as checked the validity and reliability of the scale through Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). In order to identify the factors that influenced the alertness we developed multiple linear regression and the ANOVA test to determine possible differences among groups (gender, education). The results showed the negative influence of the educational level and the size of enterprises on alertness level; as well as the negative relationship between age and entrepreneurial experience, furthermore, shows that alert level is not determined by gender difference. One of the main implications of this research is to present factors that can potentiate the effects of the entrepreneurial alertness, enlarging the possibilities of identification of opportunities for individuals.


INTRODUCTION
pportunities are central elements in the Entrepreneurship field. The origin of the emphasis of opportunities lies in the Austrian School of Economics (FOSS; KLEIN, 2010). The contribution of this school to the theory of opportunity is enriched in Kirzner's studies, in 1973, for whom, profitable opportunities result from the imbalance of prices, quantity and quality. Kirzner (1997, p. 62) uses the term 'entrepreneurial discovery', which results from the Equilibrium obtained by market participants in the systematic process of seeking knowledge on potential demand attitudes and market supply. For the author, the market is a continuous process of opportunity discovery.
Earnings obtained in this process reflect the discovery and exploitation of opportunities that had not been exploited due to lack of entrepreneurial activity. For the Austrian school, competition is central and dynamic, it is the force that drives the discovery, and it is discovery that characterizes the entrepreneurial process. Courage and imagination are attributes that drive the market process, and that the approach of opportunities help us to understand how markets work. The recognition of the importance of studying the opportunities for the field of Entrepreneurship has also been observed in other studies, notably Shane and Venkataraman's (2000), who explained the entrepreneurial process as a link between individuals and opportunities. For these authors, the field's epistemological challenge is to explain by whom and with what effect opportunities that create goods and services are discovered, assessed and exploited by some individuals and not by others.
According to Eckhardt and Shane (2003), the approach to opportunities enables a convergence amongst researchers in the field, as it is a way to coincide on central issues on the discovery, evaluation and exploitation of opportunities. The development of studies in the field has two components: one that advocates the discovery of opportunity, which is associated with the market equilibrium to information (FOSS; KLEIN, 2010), and another which considers that the opportunity can be created and not only discovered (ALVAREZ; BARNEY, 2007). In addition, although entrepreneurs have a clear initial idea about what they want to accomplish -such as the purpose and the type of product or service they want to offer on the market -, they change their objectives and their business models and strategies in response to environmental changes (BARON, 2010 Studies on entrepreneurial alertness were extended as a result of the importance attached to the study of opportunity in order to understand the entrepreneurial process (HÉBERT, LINK, 2006). Alertness is characterized by a constant state of vigilance in the environment, which allows some individuals to capture market opportunities favored by constant attention (KIRZNER, 1997;VALLIERE, 2013). In this sense, subjective and entrepreneurship factors can influence alertness, and this research sought to identify them. In addition to scientific relevance, research contributes to show elements that can increase the identification of potential business opportunities by individuals.
The objective of the research was to identify factors that influence entrepreneurial alertness, and this article presents the results of the research, which was performed with a group of entrepreneurs composed of men and women.

OPPORTUNITIES AND ENTREPRENEURIAL ALERTNESS
The opportunity may be the result of an accidental discovery or a process developed over time, having been created or discovered (ALVAREZ; BARNEY, 2007) or even stimulated by certain contexts, such as the technological (ZAHRA, 2008). Opportunities can both be recognized and built simultaneously as they are discovered and developed (VAGHELY; JULIEN, 2010). There is a relationship between identifying and recognizing opportunities, creativity and alertness (ARDICHVILI et al., 2003), and alertness influences the discovery and exploitation of opportunities (FAIA, ROSA, MACHADO, 2014;HÉBERT, LINK, 2006).
The origin of the entrepreneur alert concept is attributed to Kirzner (1979 apud TANG;KACMAR;BUSENITZ, 2012, p.78) as being: "[...] a process or a perspective that helps some individuals to be more attentive to changes, opportunities and neglected possibilities". For Ardichvili, Cardozo and Ray (2003, p.113), alertness is "a propensity to notice and be sensitive to information about objects, incidents, and patterns of behavior in the environment, with special sensitivity to maker and user problems, unmet needs and interests, and novel combinations of resources".
Alertness is a casual, accidental and unanticipated finding, coupled with the discovery of a business idea, which some authors call 'eureka', 'aha' or even alert (LUMPKIN; LICHTENSTEIN, 2005;VALLIERE, 2013 Creativity influences alert (ARDICHVILI et al., 2003), and it is an unfolding of creative process. This process begins with preparation of the individual, through the accumulation of experiences and by immersion in situations that require decision-making and the development of problems solutions. Concomitantly, new mental associations are processed in the incubation period, and the further away from existing standard models, the greater the tendency of these associations representing something creative (BARON, SHANE, 2007;GIELNIK, KAPPEL, FRESE, 2014). For Gielnik, Kappel and Frese (2014), this is achieved by means of divergent thinking. Thus, creative thinking emanates from the mind and translates to "insights" (GIELNIK, KAPPEL, FRESE, 2014, p. 520), which constitute the essence of alertness.
However, it is dependent on obtaining and evaluating information (GIELNIK, KAPPEL, FRESE, 2014;SHANE, VENKATARAMAN, 2000), as well as the active surveillance to obtain information to ensure the prior acquisition of knowledge (GIELNIK, KAPPEL, FRESE, 2014). Although causality characterizes alertness, it is also dependent on the individual and subjectivity, which intervenes in the discovery process. For the alertness process to occur, the initial idea is subjected to evaluation, which may include a market assessment as well as an exchange of views with other people (GIELNIK, KAPPEL, FRESE, 2014). In this sense, Keh, Foo and Lim (2002) investigated the evaluation of opportunities by entrepreneurs and found that risk perception plays an important role, and that when the level of risk perception is low, it is more likely for the entrepreneur to make a positive assessment of the opportunity. On the other hand, the perception of risk and opportunity assessment is dependent on subjective elements, such as the fear of failure and the vulnerability of the individual (MITCHELL; SHEPHERD, 2010). The expectation of financial return is another important element in the assessment of opportunities, and when it is high it will be positively related to the number of identified opportunities and the positive assessment of the opportunities (SHEPHERD; DE TIENNE, 2005;WELPE et al., 2011). According to Welpe et al. (2011), the expectation of potential financial reward provides motivation for individuals with little knowledge to identify opportunities, but it is little motivation to those who have considerable prior knowledge -prior knowledge is associated with the level of innovation opportunities. Thus, the greater the potential financial reward, the greater the number of identified opportunities, although those opportunities are not necessarily more innovative (SHEPHERD; DE TIENNE, 2005).  Valliere (2013) emphasizes that the mental model of entrepreneurs who have heightened alertness is rich in assigning value creation and is more strongly associated with the internal and external stimuli, since they present ability to deal with unexpected stimuli.

EXPLANATORY MODELS OF THE ENTREPRENEURIAL ALERTNESS
Valliere ( Another alertness model is that by Tang, Kacmar and Busenitz (2012), for whom alertness results from scanning and search mechanisms, where tacit and explicit knowledge are important. Then, an association or connection between the information obtained and the knowledge application possibilities will be required. While scanning and search are passive, the association is proactive. During this stage, individuals need to manipulate information, excluding redundant information and interpreting them, as well as trying to identify possible associations between accumulated knowledge and new possibilities, however this process requires a mental relaxation state. Tang, Kacmar and Busenitz (2012) consider that the search for information must recursively occur, between association and connection, and ideas and information or additional associations are produced by individuals throughout the process.  process and evaluation by the person themselves. The evaluated information is then discussed with someone and followed by the individual resuming it, and that allows one to filter the essential information and to make the evaluation if it really denotes a business opportunity and thus, the individual perceives the situation. Judgment allows one to choose between multiple possibilities.
The scale developed by Tang, Kacmar and Busenitz (2012, p. 84 Table 1 presents a summary of the alertness models discussed above.

Authors Assumptions Stages
Valliere (2013) Alertness and attention 1-Stock and wealth of information and experience; 2-Preparation of individual scheme according to experiences and stimulus; 3-Value creation Tang, Kacmar and Busenitz (2012) Scanning and search, association between internal and external knowledge.
1-Information scanning and search; 2-Associations and connections with existing knowledge; 3-Evaluation and judgment by the person and by third parties. Table 1 (2007), for example, found differences in the way of identifying opportunities for men and women. However, González and Husted (2011) found no significant differences for gender regarding the number of identified opportunities and the degree of innovation of such opportunities. For the authors, the negative effects were associated with people with less work experience and not gender. Tang, Kacmar and Busenitz (2012), when developing the entrepreneurial alertness scale, also tested the relationship with gender and found only one significant result among the six tested models. Thus, it is assumed that there are no differences between the entrepreneurial alertness for male and female entrepreneurs: H 1 : There are no differences between the entrepreneurial alertness for male and female entrepreneurs.
In addition to gender, the identification of opportunities is associated with managerial experience and the stock of knowledge, which can be derived from the age of the individual, as noted by Lumpkin and Lichtenstein (2005) and Dimov (2007). Both tacit as codified or formal learning are associated with the identification of opportunities (SMITH; MATTHEWS; SCHENKEL, 2009). That is, individuals with higher managerial experience and greater stock of knowledge are more likely to identify business opportunities. As alertness is directly associated with the identification of opportunities, the hypothesis that forms is that   We also consider that the project size can influence alertness, and the larger the enterprise, the more likely it is to result in a broader view of the market and greater access to information. Cohen and Levinthal (1990) show that the size of companies influences the capacity to innovate and to allocate more resources for research and development. Mas-Tur and Soriano (2014) demonstrated that the business size positively affects the degree of innovation of young innovative companies, and for them, the larger the company the larger the investment capacity to boost innovation tends to be. Thus: H 4 : Entrepreneurial alertness is positively associated with the size of the enterprise.
In the proposed theoretical model (figure 1), we present the relations and directions of the research hypotheses, which were tested empirically. The model suggests a direct relationship between three different dimensions of entrepreneurial activity and the degree of entrepreneurial alertness. First, we expect that the entrepreneurial characteristics interfere with alertness. Second, we suggest that the entrepreneurial experience, measured by the number of ventures initiated and managed simultaneously, will also present a relationship with alertness. Third, we expect that the size of the enterprises currently managed to present a relationship with alertness.

VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF SCALE
Initially, the data obtained by the entrepreneurial alertness scale (TANG; KACMAR; BUSENITZ, 2012) were submitted to normality, validity and reliability tests.
The 13 items have maximum values for skewness and kurtosis measures of 1.34 and 1.58, respectively. These measures allow us to assume the normality of the data (MARÔCO, 2010). The confirmatory factor analysis test 1 (CFA) demonstrated that all items have significant factor loadings on their respective size, i.e., they present factor loadings greater than .50, indicating an explanatory power of at least 25%. In addition, the secondorder factor analysis also presented significant factor loadings of the dimensions on entrepreneurial alertness, with a minimum value of .63. All the values are listed in Table   3.

HYPOTHESES TESTS AND CORRELATIONS
Once the validity and reliability of the entrepreneurial alertness scale were obtained, based on factor loadings, the values for the scale were imputed, to thereby proceed with the tests for analysis of results. Initially, we performed the bivariate Pearson correlation test. The results are shown in Table 4   in similar ways in models 2, 3 and 4, in which neither did we find significant mean differences between groups for the alertness dimensions.
For hypothesis H 2 , we examined the relationship between age, level of schooling and experience with entrepreneurial alert. In model 1, for hypothesis H 2a , which analyzes the relationship between age and the degree of entrepreneurial alertness, we identified a significant negative association (β = -.24; p<.01). This demonstrates that the older the individual, the lower the entrepreneur alertness level; thus, hypothesis H 2a was corroborated.
Furthermore, additional analyzes were performed to examine the relationship between age and the entrepreneurial alertness dimensions. In model 2, which aimed to predict the degree of scanning and search of the entrepreneur for new opportunities, the age of the individual presented significant explanatory power at the 95% level of confidence. The results also indicate a negative relationship between the age of the entrepreneur and their ability to identify new opportunities through alertness (β = -.21; p<.05).
In model 3, concerning the entrepreneur's ability to associate and connect previous and new information, the results also indicate a negative relationship with age (β = -.28; p<.01). This negative association was not found only in relation to the ability of the entrepreneur to evaluate and judge the opportunities (model 4).  In hypothesis H 3 , we seek to demonstrate that the entrepreneurial alertness is positively associated with the number of ventures created by the individual and the and the extent of entrepreneurial activity. In hypothesis H 3a , which examines the relationship between the number of created ventures and alertness (model 1), we note a negative relationship, although not significant (β = -.05; n.s.). Thus, hypothesis H 3a was not confirmed. In the additional analysis, neither did we find significant associations between the dimensions of the entrepreneurial alertness and numbers of new enterprises.
For hypothesis H 3b , which analyzes the relationship between the amplitude as an entrepreneur and the level of alertness (model 1), also identifies a negative relationship, although not significant (β = -.12; n.s.). Therefore, hypothesis H 3b was not confirmed.
However, on further analysis, in model 2, there was a negative association between the amplitude and the degree of scanning and searching of the entrepreneur (β = -.14; p<.10).
For the alertness dimensions related to association and connection (β = -.10; n.s.) and evaluation and judgment (β = -.01; n.s.), the amplitude as an entrepreneur presented no significant coefficients.
For hypothesis H 4 , in model 1, which implies a positive association between entrepreneurial alertness and size of the enterprise, we note that the size of current ventures has a positive influence on the degree of entrepreneurial alertness (β = .15; p<.10).However, since the coefficient has no significance at the 95% level of confidence, hypothesis H 4 was not corroborated. In additional analyzes, the results are similar. In model 2, we note that the degree of scanning and search showed a significant relationship to the size of the enterprise (β = .15; p<.10). In model 3, we find a similar coefficient (β = .14; p<.10), and in model 4 we find a non-significant coefficient (β = .09; n.s.).
As noted in the regression analysis, the variables in model 4 did not present significant results for predicting the ability of the entrepreneur to evaluate and judge the opportunities found.

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
As for the factors that influence the alert, which confirm findings by González and Husted (2011) and Tang, Kacmar and Busenitz (2012), the results showed that the level of alertness is independent of the gender of the entrepreneur. Dahalan, Jaafar and Rosdi (2013), in a research with Malaysian entrepreneurs, supported the hypothesis that there is and men are more active in discovering new opportunities, however the justification of the authors to this result is given due to the social and cultural norms specific to the place. In contrast, Maes, Leroy and Sels (2014) demonstrate that social norms have no effect on entrepreneurial intentions, and the effect of social influence, they say, occur indirectly, via perception of locus of control and personal attitude. Therefore, in line with the findings by González and Husted (2011), it is evident that gender does not influence entrepreneurial alertness.
Age was negatively correlated with alertness, as well as the sub constructs associated with it. Thus, it is possible that as they get older entrepreneurs start to use other mechanisms to identify opportunities, as mentioned previously. The research results also show that entrepreneurs' experience is negatively related to alertness. Thus, the higher the experience of individuals, expressed as in the length of time of experience as an entrepreneur, it is more likely that other mechanisms influence the identification of opportunities other than alertness, but heuristic analysis, as observed by Vaghely and Julien (2010). Experience in terms of number of ventures also presented negative association and it can be explained by the absence of entrepreneurial intention entrepreneurs, although they can be developed and improved, as suggested by Tang, Kacmar and Busenitz (2012).
The research showed the importance of the study by expert entrepreneurs, in that they use other ways to identify business opportunities, other than entrepreneurial alertness. In addition, we demonstrate that alertness is not determined by gender differences.
One of the limitations of this research is the nature of the sample, by covering only entrepreneurs working in the trading or service business. Therefore, future studies may broaden the focus of research, including industry entrepreneurs. It is important to note that most entrepreneurs participating in the survey were from small businesses, and has been in the market on average, for seven and a half years. Comparisons to medium and large companies and enterprises with longer periods of market activity may point out different results, enriching the theoretical contribution.
Finally, it is important to note that for alertness to turn into business it is necessary to consider that the individual's ability in alertness or signals depends on their ability to build and rebuild the information and to make judgments quickly before the window of opportunity closes. The window of opportunity, according to Tang, Kacmar and Busenitz (2012) refers to the length of time of the information transfer to others. The window can be longer when there are limiting mechanisms of imitation (such as secrets, patents) or shorter if there is no limit to imitation. The opportunity lasts for a given time, and this duration is dependent on the necessity of investment required, the number of companies or individuals who perceive it and on the dynamics of events in the environment (TRZCIELINSKI; TRZCIELINSKI, 2011), and is directly associated with alertness, which can be learned and improved. It is dependent on the imagination and helps individuals to pay more attention to changes (TANG; KACMAR; BUSENITZ, 2012).