Multigroup Exploratory Factor Analysis of Entrepreneurial Characteristics

Differences by Firm Size and Revenue in Japan

Authors

  • Katsuki Yasuoka Kyoto Institute of Technology
  • Takaaki Hosoda Advanced Institute of Industrial Technology
  • Kiyomi Miyoshi Advanced Institute of Industrial Technology
  • Tokuro Matsuo Advanced Institute of Industrial Technology
  • Qiang Ma Kyoto Institute of Technology

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.52731/lbds.v006.492

Keywords:

Entrepreneurial Characteristics, Entrepreneurial Ecosystems, Mindset and Skillset, Entrepreneur, Entrepreneurship

Abstract

Latent structure of entrepreneurial characteristics in Japan by integrating internal factors (mindset/skillset) and external factors that constitute the entrepreneurial ecosystem (EE). Building on a qualitative model (EC model), we fielded a June 2025 survey of entrepreneurs (n=604) and conducted exploratory factor analyses (ML extraction, Promax rotation) for the full sample and subgroups by employee size (1–5 vs. ≥6) and annual revenue (<¥50M vs. ≥¥50M). To enable cross-group comparability, dimensionality was fixed at five, guided by free-exploration criteria. Item adoption primarily used |loading|≥.40 with theory-guided handling of cross-loadings. Results indicate label-level reproducibility of Public Support and Innovation Execution, but limited item-level overlap, and a con-text-dependent factor (F3) whose composition shifts with scale. Congruence with the full solution is high for the employee split (e.g., φ≈.998; .976) but weaker for the lower-revenue group, while reliability generally exceeds practical thresholds. These findings imply that interventions should combine a minimal common core with stage-specific modules, and that factor comparisons should be anchored to labels rather than numbers. We outline a path toward multigroup CFA for measurement invariance and structural equation modeling to test mediation and moderation, moving from uniform, average-case policies to scale-appropriate design. Implications for policy and practice follow.

References

Yasuoka, K., Hosoda, T., Miyoshi, K., Matsuo, T., & Ma, Q. (2024). The interaction between entrepreneurial characteristics and ecosystems in Japan: Building a new model for entrepreneurs. Proceedings of the IIAI AAI Winter Conference, Jakarta, Indonesia, 5, 8. https://doi.org/10.52731/lbds.v005.337

McClelland, D. C. (1961). The Achieving Society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.

Neck, H. M., Greene, P. G., & Brush, C. G. (2017). Teaching entrepreneurship: A practice-based approach. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Daspit, J. J., Fox, C. J., & Findley, S. K. (2021). Entrepreneurial mindset: An integrated definition, a review of current insights, and directions for future research. Journal of Small Business Management, 59(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2021.1907583

Fleisher, C. (2021). 4-Sets: Configuring Mindsets, Skillsets, Toolsets, and Datasets. Aurora WDC.

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. Random House, p6.

Isenberg, D. (2011). The entrepreneurship ecosystem strategy as a new paradigm for economic policy: Principles for cultivating entrepreneurship. Babson Entrepreneurship Ecosystem Project.

Stam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: A sympathetic critique. Eu-ropean Planning Studies, 23(9), 1759–1769.

Spigel, B. (2015). The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(1), 49–72.

Ashizawa, K., & Watanabe, Y. (2019). Challenges and prospects of entrepreneurial ecosystems in Japan. Industrial Research Journal, 45(2), p.89, p.101

Audretsch, D. B., Cruz, M., & Torres, J. (2022). Revisiting entrepreneurial ecosystems (Policy Research Working Paper No. 10229). World Bank.

Baker, T. & Welter, F. (2020). Contextualizing Entrepreneurship Theory. Routledge. P. i

Downloads

Published

2026-01-28