AJM 17(2) Master-Lulu-Revised.pdf American Journal of Management Vol. 17(2) 2017 65 Influence of Social Entrepreneurship in Organizations, Family, and Society: Causes and Solutions for Success Víctor Mercader CETYS University The purpose of this research is to identify and analyze the need, the causes of inadequate performance, and the possible solutions applicable to Social Entrepreneurship in enterprises/organizations, families, and society. There was developed and applied an instrument to a sample of professionals working in the industrial Baja California state of Mexico, border with the state of California, United States. The responses obtained were categorized and taxonomies were created referred to organizations, families, and society which help summarize and prioritize the answers which are applicable to different types of leaders, entrepreneurs, students, educators, researchers and people in general, generating an impact for better performance. INTRODUCTION Through the years, people all around the world have been conscious of the needs of the great majority of local and world-wide�s populations. Nevertheless, little has been done in comparison with the immense demands for satisfying the most immediate survival needs. However, at the same time there has always been a minority of the population in all the corners of the world that has tried to help others. These individuals care about the different calamities and realities that poor and less fortunate people struggle with daily, offering solutions and being proactive with a mind focused on social development. Nowadays, a kind of entrepreneurship phenomena is emerging where some people as well as enterprises and organizations are emphasizing the importance of the application of ethical values, social responsibility and collaborative altruism in their business enterprises. This trend confronts a new challenge; namely, what kind of social actions and events may we engage in order to get more effective results that help more people and with more fairness and social equity? That is the reason why social entrepreneurship is a challenge that carries small risks and big possibilities to start a new crusade of win- win for local and global populations. This is a time that may change the paradigms under which entrepreneurship and innovation have been conducted; one has been under the manipulation of those that have been controlling the political and business leadership with pseudo leadership under the perspective of unrestrained ambition and power of domination. This study immerses the readers in an analysis of social entrepreneurship in order to know how one may improve in social responsibility at all levels and in the application of ethical values in life and work. Purpose of the study The purpose of this study is to identify and analyze the perception of professionals that participated in the study sample related to social entrepreneurship principles applied to organizations, family, and society. The resulting information from this study will be the needs, causes and feasible solutions 66 American Journal of Management Vol. 17(2) 2017 applicable to social entrepreneurship of the organizations, family and society which will be analyzed and categorized. Justification Social entrepreneurship is a reality and need for humanity, generating causes and effects where humans are responsible for their own results and consequences, inducing productivity for the common good inside and outside of organizations. Social entrepreneurship challenges us to think, observe, and perform in a way that increases prosperity in all levels of living and prosperity for the organization. If we act with enthusiasm and conviction at all levels with a socially conscious and ethical mind, we will develop proposals for new and alternative solutions supported by evidence-based decision making, thus contributing to a better organization, country, and humanity. Research Questions The approach taken for the development of the instrument is based on the identification and understanding: 1. The need for the implementation of social entrepreneurship in organizations, family, and society. 2. The causes of lack of adequate or effective social entrepreneurship practices in organizations, family, and society. 3. The feasible solutions in order to enhance and improve social entrepreneurship in organizations, family, and society. Audience Impacted by the Study This study is aimed at professionals, independent of their specialties. Employers and employees at all levels should have in mind the entrepreneur initiatives as individuals and as members of teams of different dimensions. If this entrepreneur spirit is shared and expanded towards social activities and the common good, everyone will be contributing for a better organization and better society, bringing a greater satisfaction as an integral human being. This is also applicable to all professionals, entrepreneurs, researchers, students, and other stakeholders as well as to institutions, organizations, companies, corporate groups, family, society, and public bodies. LITERATURE REVIEW Social entrepreneurship is essential to organizations, family, and society. In general, awareness of the need, importance, and advantage of social responsibility is increasing for organizations; however, this is not really applied in practice and in business policy in most of the companies, in spite of its importance. Fortunately, there has been an awakening from the start of the millennium in wanting to engage and empower people in undertaking new initiatives, projects, and actions that consider benefits for society at large, not as altruism or charity, but as ability to lead and participate in business solutions that address economic situations through the contribution of various participants. Despite a substantial literature with numerous studies and discussions in the multidisciplinary arena of social entrepreneurship that contribute to the knowledge and implementation of the theme (Pierre, Friedrichs & Wincent, 2014) it is necessary to apply the theory in low income and poor populations. The main idea is to create both social and economic value, with productive and constructive results, which Acs, Boardman & McNeely (2013) exemplify by comparing the Grameen Bank with Microsoft Corporation as very different but congruent examples for helping people in the final economic and social results. Likewise, Grove & Berg, (2014) recommend the use of established business methods to apply in social transformation, enhancing social entrepreneurship and achieving social goals with reasonable profits. The point is that this profit is reinvested to create more productivity and expansion and thus be useful for more people. There is a tremendous need to propel this kind of positive change. In a case study by Si, Yu, Wu, Chen, Chen & Su, (2015) they explain how China has reduced poverty in a consistent course of action, based upon entrepreneurship and innovation what it should be a pivot to American Journal of Management Vol. 17(2) 2017 67 learn from their methods applied to social entrepreneurship. The businesses� involvement with the poor is also necessary to create expectations and actual possibilities on poverty reduction and critical social situations. Similarly, Haugh & Talwar (2014) explain with a sample in North India, how it is possible to help and empower women to enter the world of entrepreneurship notwithstanding restricted cultural norms, rooted in social change and offering opportunities to discover and develop their unused talents. The main idea is to have more people increasingly conscious of their role as thinkers and problem solvers, with caring behavior beyond their ideologies and cultures. There is an urgent need to improve our behavior and as a consequence our quality of life and work, and decreasing the crisis created by poverty, violence, lack of education, disease, discrimination, and other socio-economic factors (Dees, 2007). Alvord, Brown & Letts (2004) concerned about the negative reality of social crises and in search of transformation, analyzed some cases presenting proposals for constructive social change, and integrating leadership, organization, innovation, and the growth of social entrepreneurship. While the topic of entrepreneurship is mandatory learning material in numerous college degree programs today, providing proper perspective of social entrepreneurship in most coursework is an actual challenge. Co & Cooper (2014) also show that although self-efficacy and ability to engage students into entrepreneurship have been achieved in curriculum, the intent to carry it out in a continuous or sustainable way is largely lacking in the classroom experience. Nevertheless, growing attention is being paid to these themes and related activities. Therefore, the study from Austin, Stevenson & Wei-Skillern (2006) reveals a comparative analysis of commercial and social entrepreneurship which helps to understand the implications of approaching more frequently and efficiently social entrepreneurship. Guzman & Trujillo (2008) helps founding variables that give meaning to social entrepreneurship, explains his theoretical concept, and search and review the literature, meanwhile Kachlami (2014) in his study proves the lack of applicability to conventional procedures and strategies based in two main individual and environmental determinants; he deduces that there is a different impact on commercial entrepreneurship compared with social entrepreneurship. Solymossy (2015) ratifies this criteria when he explains how cunning attitude is developed at business schools and institutions looking out mainly for their economic self-interest without thinking much about society. Thus, he is calling for the need of ethical behavior and social criteria (best practices) applied in local and global backgrounds and locations. Agafonow (2014) insists on social enterprise integrating value creation and value capture for making the most from the effort and strategies implemented, while Chell, Spence, Perrini & Harris (2014) give an important relevance to social entrepreneurs researching actual social needs in order to find new, ethical alternatives in the win-win life and work game of improvement. From another perspective, the work of Rahman & Tekula (2014) focuses on a replicable evaluation method of social entrepreneurship centers and programs related to social entrepreneurship in North America, Europe, and Asia, which evaluate social entrepreneurship in a very transparent model containing data sources and coding schemes that examines research achievements, teaching initiatives, outreach activities, and funding. Barazandeh, Parvizian, Alizadeh & Khosravi (2015) point to the relationship between entrepreneurial competencies based in social rules and entrepreneurs� performance. Meantime, Arasti & Didehvar (2015) show some indicators for measuring social entrepreneurship such as cultural promotion, economic prosperity of the community, people satisfaction, solidarity, welfare and social value, reduction of social inequalities, and social platform for growth. These aspects also apply and influence the purpose for relief and development arising in single small-scale entrepreneurs (SIES) presented by Azmat & Samaratunge (2009), who argue for the importance of responsibility despite the complex living conditions and limitations that exist in developing countries. They emphasize cultural traditions, market setting, ineffective legal regulatory frameworks, lack of institutional safeguards, low levels of economic development, and public awareness. Humanity, and even experts, seems unable to solve economic and societal problems, which has created a kind of weight we are carrying everywhere. Three dimensions are presented by Lundstrom & Zhou (2013) commercial, humanistic, and social entrepreneurship. Depending of the country and the culture the reactions to these dimensions are different. Pless (2012) exposed a model designed by non- governmental organizations to reduce the poverty and the unemployment with the purpose of sharing and maximizing the social impact to promote sustainable self-efficacy development. This is a reason for 68 American Journal of Management Vol. 17(2) 2017 challenges that some researchers study with admiration when people undertake communitarian models to enforce poor communities in the task of creating unity with people of the community assuming responsibility for their success under the view and supervision of the model paths (Cornwall, 1998). This kind of thought may seem paradoxical when we analyze the research of Friedman & Desivilya (2010) who argue that a good strategy for societal development is to integrate social entrepreneurship with conflict engagement, applying creativity and considering core assumptions, strategies for solutions, knowledge of the situation to solve, and expected results. Meanwhile, El ebrashi (2012) has focused on social entrepreneurship theory based on research introducing new typologies to create a sustainable social transformation under a spectrum of measurements. A new concept exposed by Montgomery, Dacin & Dacin (2012) is collective social entrepreneurship, which is influencing the collaborative activities that any group or company may direct to benefit society. These activities include framing, convening, and multimodality. In another study, Lowe & Heudemann (2012) propose five images on the processes of entrepreneurship, the image of Machines, the image of Evolution, the image of Contingencies, the image of Mind, and the image of Social Becoming. These five images are also available to be used in social entrepreneurship. On the other hand, Lepoutre, Justo, Terjesen & Bosma (2013) suggest finding a measurement method for activity of social entrepreneurship (SEA), proved in 49 countries emphasizing three variables: social mission, revenue model, and innovation. There are several aspects that influence social entrepreneurship that seeks a shared profit motive or sometimes a non-profit, but ultimately a successful, growing, effective, sustainable goal that make poor people grow, as the case of Yunus at Grameen Bank (Acs, Boardman & McNeely, 2013; Barki, Comini, Cunliffe, Hart & Rai, 2015). However, the research achieved by Andersson & Self (2014) emphasizes the difficulty of finding initial funding for social enterprises that want to emerge without a prior example of prior effectiveness by companies or social investors, and has generated what they call social bias entrepreneurship. There are different opinions that may be confused depending on the mentality, the culture of giving or the culture of problem solving according Dees (2012). Therefore, it is possible to deduce that the integration and application of ethical values is a requirement for a sensible development of social entrepreneurship, creating a correlation among benefits from the achieved results and the satisfaction that is felt. Gawell (2013) explains under another perspective the meaning and relevance of action grounded in needs, opportunities and/or perceived necessities. Barki et al. (2015) emphasize the main purpose of Social Entrepreneurship (SE) and Social Business (SB) intending to shrink vulnerabilities and search for social equalities worldwide. The main question is to find opportunities and innovate sustainable business models that help to solve society needs. For Santos (2012) the focus is the context of the dialog related to economic factors and the influence of operational and effective current economies, where value creation and value capture needs to be attended to within the growing and complex field of social intervention. The social entrepreneurs always offer an aggregate value to society including innovation and finding solutions. Thus, Bahmani, Galindo & Mendez (2012) focused on the effects of economic growth for non- profit organizations (NPOs) from eleven countries, where the common denominator is how entrepreneurship in NPO sector indirectly helps economic growth and improvement of human resources through the enhancement of education. It is important not to forget the relationship that exists among social entrepreneurship and the application of ethical values (Harris, 2009). Ethics must be a rule to follow in Social entrepreneurship as a role model example. Dey & Steyaert (2014) move us into a reflection when they insist on the impact of ethics in social entrepreneurship that is presented with three elements: power, subjectivity, and practices of concrete freedom. All of them are intervening in a kind of interrelation that should look for solutions and balance simultaneously. Ethical values are present in the three dimensions that the study analyzes, namely organizations, family and society, as this research does with social entrepreneurship. The application of ethical values does not generate negativism or harm; rather, they are only able to benefit people and have a positive influence on the results achieved. Mercader (2006) analyzed 28 taxonomies of ethical values from American Journal of Management Vol. 17(2) 2017 69 different authors and created his own taxonomy with 28 ethical values which are wholly applicable to social entrepreneurship. There are also other similar studies related to categories of ethical values that were applied to conflict solutions (Mercader, 2013), communication, organizational behavior, and quality of life and work (Mercader, 2014). These demonstrate the relevance of applying ethical values in social entrepreneurship processes, and in any process that intends to correct, improve, and fulfill well-being in all areas of live performance. Therefore, we can emphasize that even when most people are speaking of social entrepreneurship in the context of organizations or groups, it is very important to keep in mind that the basis of social entrepreneurship should initiate within the family where values, trust, and attitude are grounded and reaffirmed in daily life (Kao & Huang, 2005). If we are able to create a better working environment, it will result in surges of a synergy that will propel an improvement in productivity. By developing consistency toward common goals for the organizations, family, and the community, satisfaction, commitment, productivity, and balance will increase the wish to help and collaborate while stress and lack of self-interest will drop (Chen & Yang, 2010). That synergy nurtured by ethical values is observed and perceived by employees and work teams of organizations, inspiring the discovery and use of talent that will find better and more balanced social results based on trust (Arciénaga et al., 2008; Lams & Pu tait, 2006). Under this perspective Ferrer (2010) considers the elements of responsibility and trustworthiness as essential in all kinds of organizations, families, and society in order to create social sustainability. Ratiu, Cherry and Nielson (2014) propose the virtue of humility as indispensable because it provides vision for solving conflicts and creates self-awareness that drives the engagement in human and social ventures in the integral and integrative perspective. A good example could be what Karakas and Sarigollu (2013) consider a leadership model called Benevolent, which was applied to social entrepreneurship through what they called virtues circles in a company denominated Bereket in Turkey. The model is grounded in compassionate spirit that breeds quality, productivity, and sustainability. This kind of spiritual understanding, as Joseph & Sailakshmi (2011) call it, motivates and guides individuals and groups toward a continuous integrative and ethical social improvement. Due to this concept, we need to encourage and stimulate mind and action in all levels of society towards positive, constructive, and ethical goals. In order to spread out this criteria, entrepreneurial networking could be a helpful tool, reason for Klyver, Hindle & Meyer (2007) to focus their study in social networks among entrepreneurs, encompassing 20 national cultures. It is necessary to spread awareness around the world of the benefits of social entrepreneurship to human world society. It seems a fundamental requirement that government, NGO�s, corporations, organizations, and families with access to resources, consider very seriously engaging in social entrepreneurship. This engagement must not be driven for hidden political interests, but by the rewards of sustainable and social innovation entrepreneurship in order to create prosperity and social productivity (Osburg, 2014; Zu, 2013). All these theoretical frames reinforce the causes and solutions for social entrepreneurship achieved in this study. METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH MODEL The obtained data is the result of the application of the author�s instrument, which has been applied in previous studies. A questionnaire with open-ended questions including socio-demographic questions such as gender, age, nationality, profession, and level of education was delivered to a sample of professionals in the area of Baja California, Mexico, which is an important industrial center located in the border of Mexico with the state of California, USA. The instrument and the methodology used in this research have already been used in previous studies with certain modification, focused on other elements such as productivity, conflict management, teamwork, communication, negotiation, and social responsibility. The instrument is now being applied to social entrepreneurship. 70 American Journal of Management Vol. 17(2) 2017 The methodology used includes an anonymous questionnaire which was sent electronically to the participants of the study sample. The total sample was 259 participants. This study is a mixed-method design, descriptive and combining qualitative and quantitative research. The obtained data has been analyzed and all the answers were categorized in order to summarize and reach consistent and more precise tables, graphics, conclusions, and recommendations which will help to recognize the full worth of the performance of social entrepreneurship in organizations, family, and society. Therefore, the analysis and conclusions provide a greater knowledge and understanding of the causes that generate variables that affect social entrepreneurship and also proposals for improving it with feasible solutions that can be applied to different types of leaders, entrepreneurs, and people in general. DATA ANALYSIS Firstly, the demographic data obtained and analyze from the questionnaire is presented following the order of the questions. Questionnaire: 1. Gender (Male / Female) 2. Age 3. Nationality 4. Level of studies (Doctorate / Master / Bachelor / Other) 5. Profession 6. How necessary is social entrepreneurship for organizations, family, and society? 7. Why do you consider that is not so adequate or effective the Social entrepreneurship in the organizations, family, and society? 8. What are three factors or suggestions for improving social entrepreneurship in the organizations, family, and society? (The number of the questions does not coincide with the number of tables or figures) (The questionnaire was applied in Spanish to Mexican professionals) Q1 and Q2. Table 1 is used to show the number of participants (professionals) and their gender that integrated the samples. This table also shows age and combines both variables gender and age. It is possible to appreciate that gender is very similar in the sample analyzed where female (132 participants) are greater than male (123 participants). There were 4 participants that did not answer de gender. In relation to age, most of the professionals were in the range of 26 to 30 years old (28.96%) and it was the dominant data point. TABLE 1. GENDER AND AGE OF SAMPLE PARTICIPANTS Age Female Female (%) Male Male (%) Not Answer Total Total (%) 21-25 32 24.24% 15 12.20% 2 49 18.92% 26-30 41 31.06% 33 26.83% 1 75 28.96% 31-35 26 19.70% 31 25.20% 1 58 22.39% 36-40 15 11.36% 16 13.01% 31 11.97% 41-45 9 6.82% 20 16.26% 29 11.20% 46-61 9 6.82% 8 6.50% 17 6.56% Total 132 100.00% 123 100.00% 4 259 100.00% American Journal of Management Vol. 17(2) 2017 71 FIGURE 1. GENDER AND AGE OF SAMPLE PARTICIPANTS Q3. The Mexican nationality is high with 96.91% and the Americans with 1.93%. The difference has to do with less Americans work in the companies in Mexico. TABLE 2. NATIONALITY Nationality Number of Answers Percentage of Answers (%) American 5 1.93% Binational 2 0.77% Foreign 1 0.39% Mexican 251 96.91% Total 259 100.00% Q4. The sample was directed to individuals of which 78.46% had a professional degree, 20.33% had master degree and only 1.22% had a doctorate. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-61 N um be r of A ns w er s Age-Gender Female Male 72 American Journal of Management Vol. 17(2) 2017 TABLE 3. LEVEL OF EDUCATION Level of Education Female Female (%) Male Male (%) Not Answer Total Total (%) Doctorate 1 0.80% 2 1.71% 3 1.22% Master's Degree 26 20.80% 22 18.80% 2 50 20.33% Professional Degree 98 78.40% 93 79.49% 2 193 78.46% Total 125 100.00% 117 100.00% 4 246 100.00% Not Answer 7 6 13 Total sample 132 123 4 259 FIGURE 2. LEVEL OF EDUCATION Q5. In reference to the professions included in the sample, engineers were the highest percentage (22.62%) followed by Accountants (15.87%) and Administration (12.70%). Taken together Accounting and Administration, yield the most significant percentage (28.57%). Doctorat e, 0.80% Master's Degree, 20.80% Professi onal Degree, 78.40% Level of Education-Female Doctorate , 1.71% Master's Degree, 18.80% Professio nal Degree, 79.49% Level of Education-Male American Journal of Management Vol. 17(2) 2017 73 TABLE 4. PROFESSIONS Profession No. of Answers Response rate (%) Engineering 57 22.62% Accounting 40 15.87% Administration 32 12.70% Employee 23 9.13% Teaching 11 4.37% Marketing 10 3.97% Psychology 10 3.97% Business 9 3.57% Computing 8 3.17% Medicine 7 2.78% Law 6 2.38% Designer 5 1.98% Economist 5 1.98% Dentist 4 1.59% Coordinator 4 1.59% Communication 4 1.59% Agent 3 1.19% Architect 3 1.19% Custom Agent 3 1.19% Total 252 100.00% Not Answer 7 Total Sample 259 Q6. The analysis continues with the needs of social entrepreneurship in organizations, family and society. In all of the three cases the responses were very high in the range of very much and quite a bit. See Table 5a, b and c. When we add very much and quite a bit the results were: - Need for SE in organizations: 94.59% - Need for SE in family: 85.33% - Need for SE in society: 92.28% 74 American Journal of Management Vol. 17(2) 2017 TABLE 5a. NEED FOR SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN ORGANIZATIONS Need for Social Entrepreneurship in Organizations No. of Answers Response Rate (%) Very much 153 59.07% Quite a bit 92 35.52% More or less 13 5.02% Something 1 0.39% Little bit 0 0.00% Total 259 100.00% TABLE 5b. NEED FOR SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN FAMILY Need for Social Entrepreneurship in Family No. of Answers Response Rate (%) Very much 133 51.35% Quite a bit 88 33.98% More or less 32 12.36% Something 4 1.54% Little bit 2 0.77% Total 259 100.00% TABLE 5c. NEED FOR SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN SOCIETY Need for Social Entrepreneurship in Society No. of Answers Response Rate (%) Very much 162 62.55% Quite a bit 77 29.73% More or less 16 6.18% Something 4 1.54% Little bit 0 0.00% Total 259 100.00% When we realize that the percentages of need are very high, we may deduce the importance that the analysis has over the causes and solutions which were answered in the next questions. Q7. In Table 6, 7, 8 are shown the responses to the causes of lack of adequate or effective social entrepreneurship practices in organizations, family, and society respectively, separated and combined by gender and given as a total. All these tables show the categorizations achieved after a detailed selection of all the answers. We found different categorizations when we were grouping the answers depending on the answers related to organizations, family, or society. American Journal of Management Vol. 17(2) 2017 75 It is worth to analyze each dimension of social entrepreneurship. - In organizations were developed twelve categorizations being the most important Lack of Social Interest / Individualism / Indifference which reached (28.15%) followed by Business Interests / Business Benefit with (15.55%), Lack of Vision / Motivation (8.40%), and Lack of application of Ethical Values (8.82%). - In family were developed ten categorizations being the most important Lack of interest / Individualism / Indifference (28.18%) and in male reaching (33.35%), followed by Culture with (11.82%) and Lack of resources and support with (11.36%). - In society were developed eight categorizations being the most important Lack of Interest / Individualism / Indifference with (24.35%) which is the same category reached in the family dimension. Now, the second category selected was Selfishness (17.83%) and the third Lack of resources and support (16.52%) but very well selected by male reaching (20.37%). It is important to note that the category of Motivation was the fourth (15.65%) but highly selected by women with (19.49%). TABLE 6. CAUSES OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN ORGANIZATIONS Causes of Social Entrepreneurship in Organizations Female Female (%) Male Male (%) Not Answer Total Total (%) Work Environment 6 4.92% 5 4.42% 1 12 5.04% Conformism 7 5.74% 6 5.31% 13 5.46% Culture 4 3.28% 9 7.96% 13 5.46% Lack of application of Ethical Values 13 10.66% 8 7.08% 21 8.82% Lack of preparation 6 4.92% 1 0.88% 7 2.94% Lack of knowledge 5 4.10% 2 1.77% 7 2.94% Lack of Training / Education 6 4.92% 9 7.96% 15 6.30% Lack of initiative and social projection 7 5.74% 6 5.31% 13 5.46% Lack of Social Interest / Individualism / Indifference 36 29.51% 29 25.66% 2 67 28.15% Lack of resources and support 5 4.10% 8 7.08% 13 5.46% Lack of Vision / Motivation 11 9.02% 9 7.96% 20 8.40% Business Interests / Business Benefit 16 13.11% 21 18.58% 37 15.55% Total 122 100.00% 113 100.00% 3 238 100.00% Not Answer 5 5 10 4.20% Not Apply 5 5 1 11 Total sample 132 123 4 259 76 American Journal of Management Vol. 17(2) 2017 TABLE 7. CAUSES OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN FAMILY Causes of Social Entrepreneurship in Family Female Female (%) Male Male (%) Not Answer Total Total (%) Anarchy / Dysfunctionality 8 6.84% 5 5.05% 13 5.91% Conformism 9 7.69% 3 3.03% 1 13 5.91% Culture 16 13.68% 10 10.10% 26 11.82% Lack of enforcement of ethical values 6 5.13% 5 5.05% 11 5.00% Lack of Family Support 11 9.40% 3 3.03% 14 6.36% Lack of communication and information 12 10.26% 4 4.04% 16 7.27% Lack of Training / Education 6 5.13% 13 13.13% 19 8.64% Lack of interest / Individualism / Indifference 25 21.37% 35 35.35% 2 62 28.18% Lack of motivation and initiative 12 10.26% 9 9.09% 21 9.55% Lack of resources and support 12 10.26% 12 12.12% 1 25 11.36% Total 117 100.00% 99 100.00% 4 220 100.00% Not Answer 7 8 15 Not Apply 8 16 24 Total sample 132 123 4 259 TABLE 8 CAUSES OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN SOCIETY Causes of Social Entrepreneurship in Society Female Female (%) Male Male (%) Not Answer Total Total (%) Culture 8 6.78% 11 10.19% 1 20 8.70% Selfishness 22 18.64% 19 17.59% 41 17.83% Lack of enforcement of ethical values 6 5.08% 5 4.63% 11 4.78% Lack of communication and information 9 7.63% 8 7.41% 17 7.39% Lack of interest / Individualism / Indifference 30 25.42% 24 22.22% 2 56 24.35% Lack of resources and support 16 13.56% 22 20.37% 38 16.52% Training / Education 4 3.39% 7 6.48% 11 4.78% Motivation 23 19.49% 12 11.11% 1 36 15.65% Total 118 100.00% 108 100.00% 4 230 100.00% Not Answer 6 7 13 Not Apply 8 8 16 Total sample 132 123 4 259 American Journal of Management Vol. 17(2) 2017 77 Q8. In Table 9, 10, 11 are shown the responses to the solutions for an adequate or effective social entrepreneurship practices in organizations, family, and society respectively, separated and combined by gender and given as a total. - In organizations were developed eight categories being the most important Motivation which reached (21.43%) An important point to comment is that for female this point was very relevant reaching 27.35 %. The second category was Programs / Social Activities with 20.98%, giving a high importance by male with a percentage of 24.74%. The third category was Development projects with 18.30%. - In family were developed five categories being the most important Training / Education (32.70%) and in male reaching (35.42%), followed by Social Development Activities (31.28%). - In society were developed six categories being the most important Social interest with (21.94%); very relevant is the fact that female reached a percentage in this dimension of (30.28%). Now, the second category selected was Programs / Social Activities (17.86%) and the third Development projects (17.35%). - In the column of the tables defined as Not answer, a response was given by the participant but the gender had not previously been defined. TABLE 9 SOLUTIONS OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN ORGANIZATIONS Social Entrepreneurship solutions in Organizations Female Female (%) Male Male (%) Not Answer Total Total (%) Application of ethical values 10 8.55% 12 11.65% 22 9.82% Preparation 4 3.42% 10 9.71% 1 15 6.70% Communication 8 6.84% 6 5.83% 1 15 6.70% Training / Education 4 3.42% 5 4.85% 9 4.02% Social interest 14 11.97% 13 12.62% 27 12.05% Motivation 32 27.35% 16 15.53% 48 21.43% Programs / Social Activities 21 17.95% 25 24.27% 1 47 20.98% Development Projects 24 20.51% 16 15.53% 1 41 18.30% Total 117 100.00% 103 100.00% 4 224 100.00% Not Answer 12 12 24 Not Apply 3 8 11 Total sample 132 123 4 259 78 American Journal of Management Vol. 17(2) 2017 TABLE 10 SOLUTIONS OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN FAMILY Social Entrepreneurship Solutions in the Family Female Female (%) Male Male (%) Not Answer Total Total (%) Application of ethical values 14 12.50% 13 13.54% 27 12.80% Family support 20 17.86% 10 10.42% 30 14.22% Social Development Activities 34 30.36% 32 33.33% 66 31.28% Training / Education 34 30.36% 34 35.42% 1 69 32.70% Improving communication and information 10 8.93% 7 7.29% 2 19 9.00% Total 112 100.00% 96 100.00% 3 211 100.00% Not Answer 15 19 1 35 Not Apply 5 8 13 Total sample 132 123 4 259 TABLE 11 SOLUTIONS OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN SOCIETY Social Entrepreneurship Solutions in Society Female Female (%) Male Male (%) Not Answer Total Total (%) Application of ethical values 12 11.01% 13 15.29% 25 12.76% Training / Education 17 15.60% 11 12.94% 1 29 14.80% Social interest 33 30.28% 10 11.76% 43 21.94% Motivation 15 13.76% 15 17.65% 30 15.31% Programs / Social Activities 16 14.68% 18 21.18% 1 35 17.86% Development Projects 16 14.68% 18 21.18% 34 17.35% Total 109 100.00% 85 100.00% 2 196 100.00% Not Answer 16 31 1 48 Not Apply 7 7 1 15 Total sample 132 123 4 259 There are a summary of causes showing the percentages for the three dimensions, organizations, family, and society in Table 12 below. The category of Lack of Social Interest /Individualism / Indifference has in the three dimensions a very high influence as category (28.15%; 28.18% and 24.35%). Lack of resources and support (5.46%; 11.36%, and 16.52%) is also very relevant. The other category that is repeated but it is not so high is Lack of training / Education with (6.30%; 8.64%, and 4.78%) respectively. The same happens with Culture with (5.46%, 11.82%, and 8.70%) respectively. It is worth to talk about the category Selfishness that appears only in causes in society but is important due to the percentage of (17.83%) achieved and the category Business interests / Business benefit in organizations with 15.55%. American Journal of Management Vol. 17(2) 2017 79 TABLE 12 CAUSES OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN ORGANIZATIONS, FAMILY AND SOCIETY Causes of Social Entrepreneurship in Organizations Response rate (%) Causes of Social Entrepreneurship in Family Response rate (%) Causes of Social Entrepreneurship in Society Response rate (%) Lack of Social Interest / Individualism / Indifference 28.15% Lack of interest / Individualism / Indifference 28.18% Lack of interest / Individualism / Indifference 24.35% Business Interests / Business Benefit 15.55% Culture 11.82% Selfishness 17.83% Lack of implementation of Ethical Values 8.82% Lack of resources and support 11.36% Lack of resources and support 16.52% Lack of Vision / Motivation 8.40% Lack of motivation and initiative 9.55% Motivation 15.65% Lack of Training / Education 6.30% Lack of Training / Education 8.64% Culture 8.70% Conformism 5.46% Lack of communication and information 7.27% Lack of communication and information 7.39% Culture 5.46% Lack of Family Support 6.36% Lack of enforcement of ethical values 4.78% Lack of initiative and social projection 5.46% Anarchy / Dysfunctionality 5.91% Lack of Training / Education 4.78% Lack of resources and support 5.46% Conformism 5.91% Total 100.00% Work Environment 5.04% Lack of enforcement of ethical values 5.00% Lack of preparation 2.94% Total 100.00% Lack of knowledge 2.94% Total 100.00% A similar summary has been developed related to solutions and showing the percentages for the three dimensions, organizations, family, and society in Table 13, below. There were three categories included in the three dimensions; the highest is referred to Development projects very high in the family dimension (31.28%) and reaching (18.30%) in organizations and (17.35%) in society; the other category was Training / Education that in family was the highest (32.70%) in a significant manner, also in society (14.80%) and in organizations only (4.02%); and the third 80 American Journal of Management Vol. 17(2) 2017 category that includes all the dimension is the application of ethical values in a lower percentage but still relevant (9.82%), (12.80%), and (12.76%). Motivation was the highest in organizations (21.43%) and relevant in society (15.31%). Meanwhile in society, the highest corresponded to Social interest (21.94%); other category worth to mention is Program / Social activities with (20.98%) in organizations and (17.86%) in society. TABLE 13 SOLUTIONS OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN ORGANIZATIONS, FAMILY AND SOCIETY Social Entrepreneurship Solutions in Organizations Response rate (%) Social Entrepreneurship Solutions in the Family Response rate (%) Social Entrepreneurship Solutions in Society Response rate (%) Motivation 21.43% Training / Education 32.70% Social interest 21.94% Programs / Social Activities 20.98% Development Projects 31.28% Programs / Social Activities 17.86% Development Projects 18.30% Family support 14.22% Development Projects 17.35% Social interest 12.05% Application of ethical values 12.80% Motivation 15.31% Application of ethical values 9.82% Improving communication and information 9.00% Training / Education 14.80% Preparation 6.70% Total 100.00% Application of ethical values 12.76% Communication 6.70% Total 100.00% Training / Education 4.02% Total 100.00% The percentage that appears in all tables are from the responses completed by the participants. Those who did not respond to some questions were not considered for the total percentage. Not all participants responded to all questions; some participants left some questions unanswered as they progress through the questionnaire. Responses given which are not clear or nonsense responses are aggregated in a category denominated �not apply�. Proof of this is that the total sample was 259 but less people answered as it is displayed: For causes in organizations only 238 answered, (10 not answered and 11 �Not apply�). For causes in family only 220 answered, (15 not answered and 24 �Not apply�). For causes in society only 230 answered, (13 not answered and 16 �Not apply�). For solutions in organizations only 224 answered, (24 not answered and 11 �Not apply�). For solutions in family only 211 answered, (35 not answered and 13 �Not apply�). For solutions in society only 196 answered, (48 not answered and 15 �Not apply�). American Journal of Management Vol. 17(2) 2017 81 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS The research leads to the analysis, reflection and need of Social Entrepreneurship: General conclusions: 1. The categorizations that have been created as a result of the data obtained in this study, show a spectrum of results and knowledge that help us identify, analyze, understand and reflect upon feasible solutions for effective Social Entrepreneurship. 2. The reviewed literature is supporting the need and advantages of social entrepreneurship in many different ways and providing an opportunity for those that are interested in helping others to produce and create through innovation. There is a common denominator between social responsibility, application of ethical values and social entrepreneurship as it also benefits the under-privileged people. 3. The developed categorizations are based on the data supplied by the sample. It is important to cite some of them in a general way as seen in the Tables concerning Organizations, Families, and Society. These dimensions have partly been consistent on both the causes as well as proposed solutions. 4. The main resulting categorizations are: Causes: Lack of Social Interest/Individualism/Indifference; Lack of resources and support; Lack of application or enforcement of ethical values; Culture; Selfishness. Solutions: Training/Education; Motivation; Social interest; Programs/Social activities; Development projects; Application of ethical values. 5. In social entrepreneurship, ethical values are needed in organizations, family and society, independently of gender and age. In this research, ethical values have not been the most important categorization, even when it appeared significantly in previous studies by the author of Conflict Solutions (Mercader, 2013); Communication, Quality of Life and Work; and Organizational Behavior (Mercader, 2014). Specific conclusions: 1. The sample was comprised by 132 female participants and 123 male participants. A good parity. 2. The range of ages were between 21-25 (18.92%) and 46-61 (6.56%). The most abundant age was in the range of 26-30 which represents a percentage of 28.96%. 3. The predominant nationality was Mexican (96.91%). 4. The professional level represented 78.46% and it was very similar for males and females. There were 20.80% master�s degrees for females versus 18.80% master�s degrees for males. 5. Concerning the careers of participants, engineers were the highest percentage (22.62%) followed by Accountants (15.87%) and Administration 12.70%. 6. The needs of Social Entreprenuership in organizations, family, and society were very high. In organizations (94.59%), in family (85.33%) and in society (92.28%). It is important to note that the need for SE was less in family than in organizations and society. 7. In Causes, 12 categorizations were developed in organizations, 10 in family, and 8 in society. In Solutions, 8 were developed in organizations, 5 in family, and 6 in society. 8. The only categorization in Causes that was a repeatedly high percentage for the three dimensions was Lack of Interest/Individualism/Indifference. 9. In causes the categorizations that appear in three dimensions are: Culture; Lack of resources and support; Lack of Training/Education; Lack of interest/Individualism/Indifference. In solutions, the categorizations that appears in the three dimensions are: Application of ethical values; Development projects; Training/Education. 82 American Journal of Management Vol. 17(2) 2017 10. There was not a significant difference between male and female in general related to the development of the categorizations, except for: a) In Causes, organizations with the following categorizations: Lack of Social Interest/ Individualism/Indifference resulted in 29.51 % for females and 25.66% for males. To a similar effect, organizations with the following categorizations: Business Interests/ Business Benefit, the males got a higher percentage (18.58%) while females only reached 13.11 %. In Lack of Preparation, there is a difference between males who got 0.88% while females got a 4.92%. b) In causes in family, there is a significant difference in the following categorizations: Lack of interest/Individualism/Indifference, males attained 35.35% while females only attained 21.37%. In others categorizations the margins of difference are not big enough to mention. c) In causes in society, the difference was observed in two categorizations: In Motivation with 19.49% females and only 11.11% males; the other was in Lack of resources and support where males achieved 20.37% and females only reached 13.56%. d) In solutions in organizations, the categorization Motivation had a significant difference, female thought it was more important 27.35% and males only considered 15.53%; the categorization Programs/Social activities was the opposite, it was more important for males 24.27% than for females 17.95%. e) In solutions in family, both genders were balanced. In Family support, the differences found were 17.86% for females and 10.42% for males. f) In Solutions in Society, the categorization of Social Interest had the highest differences in all of the research. Females reached 30.28% while males only reached 11.76%. In an opposite way, males gave a higher percentage to Program/Social activity and Development Projects (21.18%) versus females, who only gave 14.68% in both categories. Recommendations Here are a few recommendations to consider: 1. This study could be applied to a wide range of sectors of society, various types of families, diverse economic and cultural levels, different organizations, companies from different branches and styles, government institutions, professionals of all careers, members of different religious associations and others if used with the same measuring instrument or modified and/or adapted. 2. It could also be applied in other countries and cultures in favor of observing and analyzing similarities and differences. 3. In the educational sector, it is considered important for faculty, staff, students and education authorities in terms of raising vision and awareness from scientifically based research referred to Social Entrepreneurship. 4. There are similar studies using the same instrument developed by the author that could analyze relationships of Social Entrepreneurship (this study) with the causes, solutions, necessity, and influence of social responsibility, ethical values, productivity, and others dimensions that are also associated with work, family, and society. American Journal of Management Vol. 17(2) 2017 83 REFERENCES There are a good quantity of peer reviewed papers that are contained in this literature review that enforces validity and reliability to the research in process. This source of information is showed as followed. Acs, Z., Boardman & McNeely, C. (2013). The social value of productive entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 40 (3) 785�796. Agafonow, A. (2014). Toward a positive theory of social entrepreneurship: On maximizing versus satisficing value capture. Journal of Business Ethics, 124, 709�713. Alvord, S. H., Brown, L. D., & Letts, C. W. (2004). Social entrepreneurship and societal transformation. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 40(3) 260�282. Andersson, F. O., & Self, W. (2014). The social-entrepreneurship advantage: an experimental study of social entrepreneurship and perceptions of nonprofit effectiveness. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. Arasti, Z., Zarei H. & Didehvar, F. (2015). Identifying the Evaluative Indicators of Regulatory Policies for the Development of Social Entrepreneurship. Public Organization Review, 15 (3) 453-474. Arcienaga, L., Woehr, D. & Poling, T. (2008). El impacto de la diversidad de valores en los equipos sobre las variables de proceso y el desempeño de la tarea. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología. 40 (3) 523-538. Azmat, F. & Samaratunge, R. (2009). Responsible Entrepreneurship in Developing Countries: Understanding the Realities and Complexities. Journal of Business Ethics, 90, 437�452. Austin, J., Stevenson, H. & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: same, different, or both? Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 30 (1) 1�22. Bahmani, S., Galindo, A. & Mendez, T. (2012). Non-prot organizations, entrepreneurship, social capital and economic growth. Small Business Economics, 38 (3) 271-281. Barki, E., Comini, G., Cunliffe, A., Hart, S. & Rai, S. (2015). Social Entrepreneurship and Social Business: Retrospective and prospective research. RAE - Revista de Administração de Empresas, 55 (4) 380 -384. Barazandeh, M., Parvizian, K., Alizadeh, M. & Khosravi, S. (2015). Investigating the effect of entrepreneurial competencies on business performance among early stage entrepreneurs global entrepreneurship monitor (GEM 2010 survey data). Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 5 (1) 1. doi:10.1186/s40497-015-0037-4 Chell, E., Spence, L., Perrini, F. & Harris, J. (2014). Social Entrepreneurship and Business Ethics: Does Social Equal Ethical? Journal of Business Ethics. 1-7. DOI 10.1007/s10551-014-2439-6. Chen, C. & Yang, C. (2012). The Impact of Spiritual Leadership on Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Multi-Sample Analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 105, 107-114. Co, J., & Cooper, S. (2014). Developing entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intent: A case on social entrepreneurship. In A. Lundstrom, Zhou, C., Von Friedrichs, Y. & Sundin, E. (Eds.), Social Entrepreneurship: Leveraging Economic, Political, and Cultural Dimensions. (179-193). (International Studies in Entrepreneurship: Vol. 29. Springer International Publishing. Cornwall, J. (1998). The entrepreneur as building block for community. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 3 (2) 141�148. Dees, J., (2007). Taking Social Entrepreneurship Seriously. Society, 44 (3) 24-31 Dees, G. (2012). A Tale of Two Cultures: Charity, Problem Solving, and the Future of Social Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 111, (3), 321-334. Dey, P. & Steyaert, C. (2014). Rethinking the Space of Ethics in Social Entrepreneurship: Power, Subjectivity, and Practices of Freedom. Journal of Business Ethics. 1-15. Doi: 10.1007/s10551- 014-2450-y. El-ebrashi, R. (2012). Social entrepreneurship theory and sustainable social impact. Social Responsibility Journal, 9 (2), 188�209. 84 American Journal of Management Vol. 17(2) 2017 Ferrer, J. (2010). Eticidad en organizaciones humanas: reto en la construcción de un balance social de futuro. Multiciencias, 7 (3) 319-328. Friedman, V. J. & Desivilya, H. (2010). Integrating social entrepreneurship and conflict engagement for regional development in divided societies. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 22(6), 495�514. doi:10.1080/08985626.2010.488400. Gawell, M. (2013). Social Entrepreneurship: Action Grounded in Needs, Opportunities and/or Perceived Necessities? VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. 24 (4) 1071-1090. Grove, A. & Berg, G. (2014). Social Business. Theory, Practice, and Critical Perspectives. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag Berlin and Heidelberg GmbH & Co. KG Guzmán, A. & Trujillo, M. (2008). Emprendimiento social - revisión de literatura. Estudios Gerenciales, 24 (109) 105-125. Haugh, H. & Talwar, A. (2014). Linking Social Entrepreneurship and Social Change: The Mediating Role of Empowerment. Journal of Business Ethics. Doi: 10.1007/s10551-014-2449-4 Harris, J. D. (2009). Ethics and entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 24 (5) 407�418. Joseph, C. y Sailakshmi, S. (2011). Spiritual intelligence at work. The IUP journal of Soft skills. 5 (4) 21- 30. Kachlami, H. (2013). The Likely Determinants of Social Entrepreneurship and Policy Implications, In Lundström, A, Zhou, C., Von Friedrichs, Y., Sundin, E., Social entrepreneurship Leveraging Economic, Political and Cultural Dimensions: Springer. 293-308. Karakas, F. & Sarigollu, E. (2013). The Role of Leadership in Creating Virtuous and Compassionate Organizations: Narratives of Benevolent Leadership in an Anatolian Tiger. Journal of Business Ethics, 113 (4) 663-678. Klyver, K., Hindle, K. & Meyer, D. (2007). Influence of social network structure on entrepreneurship participation - A study of 20 national cultures. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4 (3) 331- 347. Läms, A., y Pu tait, R. (2006). Development of organizational trust among employees from a contextual perspective. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15 (2) 130-141. Lowe, S. & Heudemann, A. (2012). Images of entrepreneurship: towards a new categorization of entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 8 (1) 35-53. Lepoutre, J., Justo, R., Terjesen, S. & Bosma, N. (2013). Designing a global standardized methodology for measuring social entrepreneurship activity: the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor social entrepreneurship study. Small Business Economics, 40 (3) 693-714. Lundstrom, A. & Zhou, C. (2013). Rethinking Social Entrepreneurship and Social Enterprises: A Three- Dimensional Perspective into Social Entrepreneurship. International Studies in Entrepreneurship. 29, 71-89. Mercader, V. (2006). A study of ethical values of college students. Ed.D. University of South Florida. Mercader, V. (2013). Influence of ethical values on conflict solutions. Eastern & indigenous perspectives on conflict resolution. Ed.: Pathak, Yaswant. PA, USA: International center for Cultural studies USA Inc. Mercader, V. (2014). Estudio de valores éticos relacionados con la Solución de Conflictos, la Comunicación, la Calidad de Vida y de Trabajo y el Comportamiento Organizacional en las empresas, familias y sociedad. Ponencia en el XVIII Congreso Internacional de la Academia de Ciencias Administrativas A.C. ACACIA � Tijuana, Edo. de Baja California. 22 al 25 de Abril del 2014. Montgomery, W., Dacin, P. & Dacin, M. (2012). Collective Social Entrepreneurship: Collaboratively Shaping Social Good. Journal Business Ethics, 111 (3) 375-388. Osburg, T. (2014). Sustainable Entrepreneurship: A Driver for Social Innovation. Sustainable Entrepreneurship. CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance. 103-115. Doi.: 10.1007/978-3-642- 387553-1_7. American Journal of Management Vol. 17(2) 2017 85 Pierre, A., Friedrichs, Y., and Wincent, J. (2014). Social Entrepreneurship. International Studies in Entrepreneurship. 29, 43-69. Pless, N. (2012). Social Entrepreneurship in Theory and Practice - An Introduction. Journal of Business Ethics, 111 (3) 317-320. Rahman, N. and Tekula, R. (2014). A Replicable Evaluation Method of Social Entrepreneurship Centers and Programs into Emerging Research Directions in Social Entrepreneurship. Advances in Business Ethics Research, 5, 111-123. Ratiu, C., Cherry, B. and Nielson, T. (2014). Humility in Social Entrepreneurship: A Virtuous Circle into Emerging Research Directions in Social Entrepreneurship. Advances in Business Ethics Research, 5, 11-31. Santos, F. (2012). A Positive Theory of Social Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 111 (3) 335- 351. Si, S., Yu, X., Wu, A., Chen, S., Chen, S., & Su, Y. (2015). Entrepreneurship and poverty reduction: A case study of Yiwu, China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 32, 119-143. Solymossy, E. (2015). Call for collaboration in researching the best practices in teaching ethical entrepreneurship: The conflict of money and ethics. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 5 (1), Doi:10.1186/s40497-015-0036-5 Zu, L. (2013). International Perspective on Sustainable Entrepreneurship. Sustainable Entrepreneurship. 67-100.